drive. they like it. coach surgeons. we could have better peer review. but dr. put in 500 unnecessary heart stents. it is transparent. i think people are hungry for more transparency. host: jeremy from brooklyn. caller: i am a physician in new york and i have a couple of comments.

your statement came from the new england journal, and i have had experience with the new england journal with and some things -- not that i have tried to publish in the new england journal, but i find that some of the articles can be rather favorite on the basis of who happen to know their editorial selection. and that in the new england journal and is, therefore, not always as accurate as where you are stating. host: what kind of doctor are you, jeremy? caller: i may general surgeon. i retired, but a general surgeon. caller: one of the main things is that the anecdotes are not data. judging from the morbidity conferences and so on that we have, going on the data from the

committee hospitals in which i have worked, the air raids and the unnecessary surgery rates are so far -- error rates and unnecessary surgery rates are so far lower than what you are saying. host: what did you think of the idea of more transparency? caller: i have no problem with more transparency. certainly, there has been a tendency for more transparency over the years. the ethics committee at the hospitals continually discussed with the physicians and hospitals, the fact that the patient should be made immediately aware of any errors that golan -- go on. this has been emphasized in the new york hospitals in which i have worked. host: dr. makary? guest: there is a broad range of treatment. in my own center, there has

been less treatment. we see the cancer and we go in and we take out the cancer. and when someone needs back surgery, it is a different world. people in their own specialty, that is, people that do pap smears say that there are up to 40% of them that are unnecessary. hart stands, pacemakers -- people have vastly different rates of over treatment. but what we are seeing is that doctors in that specialty are publishing in that journal -- in the journal. and a peer review process is not always a fair process. but the control board of american -- of american medicine is now listing the things that you should think twice about having if they are recommended to you. host: the next trough -- the next call comes from tammy in utah. caller: what i would like to say about medical insurance, the reason why i am leaning toward

obama -- and i really do not know what obamacare is, but from what i understand ifrom mitt romney, he doesn't believe in any care. my husband has high blood pressure. he was not a mechanic ever insurance we went to, and he could not pass the physical. the insurance company would not injure him. i tried to buy him insurance. as soon as he said he was employed independent, nobody would injure him. that is my big issue. when people have worked their whole lives and they get sick, we should be able to buy insurance. host: dr. makary, what role -- and if you want to address her specific point, that is fine, but what role do the insurance companies play in this unaccountableness, as you call

it? guest: we have had no good ways to measure the quality of health care. the insurance companies have been eager to get into the business of looking at performance and use it as a way to pay hospitals and doctors. the problem is, we have not had a good measure until now. there is a very exciting revolution taking place in medical care now. it is in medicare website, hospital compare, and it has ratings for hospitals, patient satisfaction scores to my information on whether they follow best practices. some of the information is helpful. some of it is not. but we are seeing a revolution out where the heart surgeon's society is getting ready -- together with consumer reports in a way to measure outcomes. and 40% of hospitals now participate in this outcome

performance test. host: 10 in new york on the republican line. -- ken in new york on the republican line. caller: i went into the hospital with a compound fracture of my lower right leg. at a local hospital here i had to read through all of the paperwork there were handing me before i went into surgery. -- they were handing me before winter surgery. -- went into surgery. and it had something to do with the left leg. i was like, wait a minute, i broke my right leg here. now i have to look over these forms again. they had to go back and redo and bring me the correct forms.

i was in there for about almost a month. they transferred me to another hospital over in manhattan, which is about 35 miles west of here. and again, they brought me in for additional surgery. host: can we conclude this? caller: ok, so, i got home and i'm looking around at the bills i was going to pay, and i found a majority of them were repeats. i had to sort through all of these bills i received.

host: kenneth, i think we got enough information on the table. dr. makary? guest: n/a plane crashes in the u.s., there is an investigation, the black box is retrieved, and the entire aviation community learn from that mistake. not so much in health care. we have the same mistakes happen again and again. we need to learn more from our own mistakes in health care. we need good. you. we need to examine what goes wrong. what i was a d.c. -- we need good peer review. we need to examine what was wrong. when i was at a d.c. hospital, somebody fell and hurt themselves. even though there was a lot of attention about what happened, the elevator shaft remained open and a second person walked in there. it is hard to believe that we have the same mistakes happen again and again in health care. and we have these so-called "never" events that happen again and again host: sheboygan,

wisconsin, barbara. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. dr. makary, i agree with you 100%. my question is this, health care seems to be one of the only things that is not a premarket industry in the united states because regardless of whether we have the information as to the optimus and effectiveness of a hospital or a physician problem -- or a physician, our health care provider networks that we are allowed to use are dictated by the insurance companies. a lot of the discussion about health care in the united states, people fail to discuss the role of the insurance companies and in network and out of network providers. i would like for you to comment

on a world of our employers and large insurance companies play in directing where we get care. oftentimes, we are not allowed to get hair -- get care at, say, a university hospital or a teaching hospital regardless of our condition since solely because the out of pocket expenses will be way too high for a person to report getting the best care, even though it exists. guest: in my book and "and accountable," i share the reasons why it patient often decides to come to, particular hospital. their mother was treated there, the party was easy. if people are choosing a hospital based on the parking, we have what is called a dysfunctional free market. we have one set of the economy functioning at a level where the competition is on the wrong level. it needs to be on the level of performance and outcomes. patience if i hear all the time

are increasingly frustrated, even distrustful of the health care system. they have limited options and they turn to there're insurance companies and they feel like they are appealing a cell phone bill. they cannot get through. doctors are also frustrated with health care system. we have a system where 46% of doctors say they are burned out, according to a mayo clinic study of the two months ago. when doctors say they are burned out, the performance will not be as good. host: dr. makary, when it comes to accountability, i want to go back to canada to talk about his insurance bills that he received, -- back to kenneth who talked about the insurance bills that he received, etc., should there be a priceless? -- price list? guest: you should be able to find out the average cost of something even before you have paid for it. the medical center at my home town hospital said you could

have a heart operation and if something goes wrong, we will eat the bill. we will give you a set -- a fixed set procedure and it will be a service and it will be like any other service in the free market. host: why did you drop out of medical school? guest: i decided to start a school of public health master's program to study the problem of quality in health care. and i'm really glad i did. looking back, it was a year where i met some of the leaders in patient safety. eventually, i really missed the bedside care, and i went back to finish medical school and i love my job as a cancer surgeon today at johns hopkins. but i bumped into one of those people i met later life and he was at a conference and he said, how many of you know another doctor who should not be operating because he or she is too dangerous. every single one of the 2000 people in the audience raised their hands. we have a serious problem with the mass of variation and the

quality of health care. it frustrates doctors alike just as much as patients. unless we get to this issue of quality, getting to measuring it, how will we address health care costs in the u.s. and? dr.: back in the 1970's, nolan from minnesota wrote a book, ", a surgeon under the knife" and it was a best seller at the time. are you familiar with the book? guest: it is a great book. i applaud anyone who comes out and speaks openly and honestly about the problems in health care without alienating the doctors or the medical community. let's face it, there are a million doctors in the u.s.. they are on the better side of health care. we ought to be careful about the inflammatory ways this can be treated by the media. we should not be starting doctors when they speak out. we had a nurse speak out in

florida at a hospital down there who said there are too many heart procedures being done by one doctor. an internal investigation substantiated the claim. the nurse was then fired at the hospital kept the doctor. the "new york times" got a hold of the story. there is a cardiologist in wisconsin who story i tell in the book as well. we need to be open and honest about this if we are going to fix it, not getting in fear. host: do you think that doctors should be run in hospitals? guest: when doctors run the hospitals, the culture is better. there are administrators who are on the front line and they get it. when the management becomes detached and the front-line workers feel the executives do not understand what is really happening on the front lines, that company is in trouble. i see hospitals out there that

are success stories where the front line doctors and nurses feel the management gets them. and i see hospitals where it is dangerous there because the doctors feel like tenants and they feel their hospital is like the landlord. they do not feel they own the delivery of care. many times they say, we know how to make the care better, but we feel disempowers. host: do insurance companies have too much influence over doctors and hospitals? guest: we want to do what is in the best interest of the patients. we had these insurance -- we hit these insurance obstacles and it frustrates a heck out of doctors and patients. there are some mechanisms we can pursue to try to go round as process, but it is too burdensome, and many times we get nowhere. patients are often times stuck with a problem. host: did the affordable care act address any of your concerns that you write about in your

book? guest: there is definitely a focus in the affordable care act to make health care to focus on quality. if the number one death is heart disease. no. 2, cancer. no. 3, preventable adverse events and preventable infections. no one talks about in that terms because we do not look at the aggregate. the institute of medicine report, the office of inspector general report, they all affirm these numbers. we have a lot of money going to heart disease and cancer. we have not been talking about #three. the affordable at care act does some work. we also need transparency provisions. host: is health-care availability widespread enough in this country, are we coming to a system where you have to go to a major metropolitan area to get cutting edge care or whatever? guest: it is not widely available in every way it should be. we have massive disparities in rural areas. doctors go to medical school in these funds cities -- fun

cities. do they want to go work in a rural area where they have to deal with higher not practice premiums, bigger overhead costs, practicing out of their area and a broader range of services? there are increasing disincentives for good young doctors to go to rural areas and underserved populations. and now with the way reimbursement is going and with our health care system is, quite frankly, bankert, those disparities are getting worse. -- bankrupt, those disparities are getting worse. i have seen doctors go to a subscription service. people will pay me $1,000 or $2,000 a year and i will go to their house and they will have my number doctors are doing it and it is unfortunately creating a class segregation. host: nancy, your honor with dr. makary. caller: i would like to

congratulate c-span, and the one. this transparency in health care is one of the most important things we could ever do. i agree with dr. makary 100%. the transparency in the health- care system right now was not there. and it is the responsibility of a private insurance company to pay the doctors and nurses because they are not getting their fair share of the dollar. and the other parts that i wanted to ask dr. makary about, maybe you are from john mark -- -- maybe being a your from johns hopkins hospital, there is ag die machine -- a ge dye machine that blows the dye into your body and it goes throughout your body.

at my hospital, they were not taking the report. i went to johns hopkins and i talked to the radiologist there and they said, absolutely, you have to take the iv ports. what ended up happening to me, and the head of our neurosurgery department, he wrote a letter to my other doctors stating that when they blew the die in -- the dye in, the iv pushed back because of the advance of air into the vein and it caused five blood clots. what i talked to the head of the nursing department about changing that type of procedure to make sure that everything is taped, they would not listen. and i have a medical background.

i grew up around doctors my entire life. my father was on the board for the state of louisiana as a pharmacist. and i have had a disease misdiagnosed for 10 years until palo alto medical center. host: dr. makary? guest: the problem of the infiltrated iv gets to a larger issue, which is the standardization of care. we have this idea of a checklist that a doctor would go through in the same with allied pilots would go through before flying a plane. it makes sense, it said that many doctors are not doing it. we did not really have a system for doing it. science explodes with information. we have new services that are mind-boggling. but the coordination of services and the standardization of best practices has lagged behind. one of the great things that i described in my book are the new generation of doctors. they think differently. they expect transparency in every aspect of life.

that generation looks different from the old guard. they tend to be a second career, older, more women, and they try holistic care. they do yoga. they think differently and they expect honesty and they have very little tolerance for not telling the truth. they are changing health care today. that is one of the exciting things happening. host: dr. makary, to the states vary in how much accountability and transparency there is? guest: trend -- tremendously. not only to the state medical boards very, -- vary, but whether or not you know about your doctor's criminal background varies depending on what state you live in. some states make the complication rate public and others do not. it is the wild west out there. it is time, probably, for some national standards in the same way the faa has national standards. i probably should not have a dui

and operate the next day. but you can do that in many states. in aviation, not so. it is considered that are left well-being is a matter of public safety. host: next call from of turkey, new mexico. go ahead, jason. -- albuquerque, new mexico, go ahead, jason. caller: i have been working in many emergency rooms and i do not have a very good grasp on the way that health care is working right now. it is a broken system. we are dealing with so many people, such an influx of patients that we cannot get a grasp on it. guest: it is always a balance between what is feasible and what is tangible. we will not overhaul the health-

care system overnight, but one thing we can do is not rely on the government or the insurance companies. we can make this system more transparent so that you do not have to walk in blind when you choose your health care. if patients are increasingly frustrated with the problems of health care, know that a recent mayo study found that 46 percent of doctors feel they are burnt out. there is frustration on both sides. we have to face an important question now as a society. are we going to believe as a groups that patients have our right to know about the quality of their hospitals? for the first time, this information is being collected. if it brought there for the public more completely, if they could make -- if it was out there for the public more completely, they could make more informed decisions. host: yvonne and maryland accurate -- yvonne in maryland.

caller: i have a question for you. i have a family member that is at a local hospital. they went in for a potassium replacement. i thought they would get it in the emergency room and just be there for one or two days. now they have ended up with sepsis, an overwhelming infection, and with hypertension for a long time and out in the i see you. -- and now in the icu. how can you get hospital administration to respond to your concerns? i requested to speak with the hospital president and i just got a call for -- from his assistant, and it has been three days. every two or three rooms on the floor had a cart, and a mother ended up getting sepsis and is currently very ill in the icu. guest: i applaud your efforts to

reach out to the hospital, and keep at it. i find out hospital executives are very interested in the feedback from their communities. when things are in the public eye, hospitals refined -- respond faster than almost any other situation. they are interested in serving their communities. and we do not have villains in this system. what we have our good people working in a bad system. we have hospitals where they are under pressure to fill their beds and do procedures, so they do so. we put pressure on doctors to see more patients, so they do. surgeons are under pressure tuesday, two more operations, so they do. every -- to do more surgery, so they do. everyone is under pressure. it is the volume that is the incentive, not quality. host: dedicated to my father, whose integrity and care of cancer patients has inspired me

to be in by -- -- to be a doctor and to share my story. what is the difference between your career and your father's career? what is most start to you? guest: we talked about my father's career of taking care of cancer patients. he was in the golden era of health care. many of of us wish we could go back to the time when you could spend two hours talking to a patient about his diagnosis and care. you could make house calls. increasingly, health care has become corporatized. that is public intriguing to this 46 percent of doctors who say they are burnt out. health care is a great profession. i love being a doctor. patients will trust me to put a knife to their skin, or tell me sigritz that they would not even tell their spouse. within meeting -- within minutes of meeting a, just because i'm a doctor. that is something we ought to

respect as a profession. and unfortunately, the public is seeing the medical profession as increasingly arrogant, out of touch, and not transparent. there is an incentive to make outcomes more available to the public and in a way that are fair to the doctors and useful to the patients. host: last call for dr. makary. out in michigan,. . caller: listening on the phone of come up with a very good question, and i know we do not have time for it. we made a stabenow little while ago about accountability -- you made a statement a little while ago about accountability and as far as people went to the doctor, and they are being told -- i am getting a little confused here. you said so many things that are so true. beuse said to me things that just seemed so false to me that kind of threw me off in my thought.

just briefly, 30 years ago, i had spine surgery. i have how to work all these years and, now my back is worn out. it just lost a few years there has been some $200,000 spent on my back. i'm sitting on the couch in the same position i was five or six years ago. and every time i go to the doctor, they say, we've gone as far as we can go. go see this guy. the guy starts the procedure completely over again. and after a couple of years i say, no, we've already done that three times. let's move on. we can't do that because i have procedures that i have to follow. host: i think we got the point. dr. makary, in response? the guest: i have these frustrations as a doctor. it's you feel you can offer something good for somebody and you look back in retrospect and you think, what have i done? there is no real good treatment for this condition. other times, you see people come

back with dramatic, positive results that are life changed and you feel good about the profession. we need to be honest about the options. if 30% of patients are never given the option of minimally invasive surgery. 15% are under treated. we have an over treatment program and also under treatment problem. business leaders increasingly say, look, we cannot compete with businesses overseas. health care is the one thing where we throw money at it and we do not know what we are getting for our money. with every other contractor, their performance metrics, except with healthcare. host: we have been talking with dr. marty makary, a surgeon at johns hopkins hospitals in baltimore. here is his book. we have about a half-hour left on the "washington journal" this morning.

coming up, our weekly america by the numbers segment. we will be looking at workplace safety issues. we will be right back. >> the first thing in our article here is getting medicare costs under control as the number-one priority. and it is the most untouchable thing. but that is going to cause more trouble than any other problem we got physically in the u.s. getting medicare costs under control is the number-one thing. >> usain also, surcharge smokers, and the obese for their medicare coverage. >> right. >> where did that idea come from? >> it came from oz. on the person that put it in the memo, but i did not have to

fight hard for it. i ran something in the "washington post" where instead of calling people morbidly obese i called them mega-fatties and i was reduced by the "washington post" for being insensitive. and i guess i probably am. this is something that everybody knows to be true and someone has to pay for it. are not saying you should bankrupt people if they are too heavy, but there should be penalties. i am not really a democrat, but i am sort of a democrat compared to him. you have to be responsible to some extent for your personal behavior. someone has to pay for it. >> quite right, and we should point out also that we are not the only ones making arguments like this. there have been other bipartisan commissions and so forth. the task force that was headed by alice rivlin and pete dimension -- pete the medici, republican and democrat, also said we need to do something

about the obies and smokers. they also had a proposal that was more complicated than ours or restricting spending on end of life care. -- for restricting spending on end of life care. by the way, these are painful decisions, but we will have to face them. >> fixing the economy, sunday at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's q&a. >> i was always shocked, as anyone who spends on a timer on campaigns is, that most people could not explain to me why they did anything they did. how do you know that? why you do that? and at some point, they had done it because they've always done it that way, or they had some set of rules that was not really based in any research. i went around campaigns with a degree of skepticism about a lot of the practices that were taking place and the way people were devoting time and resources. and as i have learned about people, starting in academia,

doing these random experiments and doing is controlled trials that were being adopted by the lead -- the people in the political world and start learning more about the date and targeting, based on inflation that has revolutionized campaigns in the last decade, i realize this is a major generational shift. in addition to all of these new forms of research by changing the way campaigns operated, you have this kind of to -- this kind of cultural tension between a lot of the campaigns and the way they were operated, and as a new, and a lyrical movement. >> more with the victory allowed author, sergeant eisenberg -- sasha issenberg on both tv's afterwards saturday at 10:00 p.m. and sunday at 9:00 p.m.. now we continue with "washington journal." host: we are joined by bill

wiatrowski. he is with the bureau of labor statistics. we're working -- looking at workplace safety in the next half hour. 4609 fatal work injuries in 2011. older workers are four times more likely to be killed on the job. over 90% of fatal injuries occur to men. one in five fatally-injured women die from homicide, often by a relative or domestic partner. if we could just very quickly walk through some of these statistics, 4609 fatal injuries, where is the majority of these happening? guest: we just put these up last week. this is the 2011 data. we have been doing this for about 20 years. the majority of cases have been in a couple of industries, including transportation, road

incidents, construction, and other industries like manufacturing. we looked at a variety of demographic information. we looked at fatal work injuries by age. while that varies across the age group, the rate is considerably higher for older workers, as you said, four times higher than regular workers. host: do we know why? guest: we see it in a lot of different types of fatal injuries. in one case, it is an event that might be less severe for a younger worker, like a fall, but will lead to complications and a fatality for older workers. another area where we see a lot of fatal injuries for older workers is in farming. we see family farms. we see cases where there may be an older person as the only one left working on a farm, for instance contractors overturning, and things like that. host: and when you say one in

five fatally injured women die from homicide, could you explain that? guest: the vast majority of the fatally injured workers are men. but then we divide the data into men versus women and we look at what the events are the lead to homicide. for instance, is a transportation incident? is it a fall? is a homicide? is it being struck by an object? in the case of win, -- women, a large number occur by homicide. and we have some new data and a real look at with the perpetrators are in the cases of those homicides. in the case of men, it is often a robber or some other assailant. but in the case of women, it is often someone they know. that could be a domestic partner or a spouse coming to the workplace. and employers have instituted a number of safety features that have prevented that. security in the workplace and things like that, but that is

not true of all workplaces. host: fatal injuries among hispanic and latino, workers rose in 2011. an increase in fatalities among foreign-born workers. is that because of language barriers? other guest: there are a lot of hypothesis, and that is certainly one of them. the safety and health administration has been encouraging more multilingual instructions for safety. we hope there is a movement in that direction. we do see an increase for the first time after four years of decreases in the fatal work injuries among hispanics. certainly, there has been an increase in employment in the nation after a downturn in recent years. but it has risen particularly among the foreign born. and that could be language barriers. it is not a particular piece of information that we are capturing, but we are able to distinguish between the foreign born and the native born.

host: we are talking to bill wiatrowski, who was the associate commissioner for the bureau of labor statistics. also joining us from pittsburgh is john mendeloff, the director of iran center for health and safety, in the workplace. mr. rand -- mr. mendeloff, could you explain what the rand center is? guest: yes, we work with both labour and management will work with how to improve public policy and research safety and health injuries. if we have studied many different government programs to see if they are working. we have looked at innovative ideas to see whether they are worth passing on to other governments and trying out. that has been our focus. we have the support of our rights report of a number of corporations, and also labor unions. host: and you have listened to our conversation so far and heard some of those statistics.

what are some of the solutions to either improve the workplace, or -- especially when it comes to fatal injuries, 4609. what are some of the recommendations that the rand center has made? guest: let me provide some perspective on that. in the year after world war i ended, there were 3000 workplace fatalities it just in the state of pennsylvania with 7 million people. today, we have more than 40 times that many people in the country, but though a number of workplace fatalities has not even double. the rate has been going down at a very steady clip. workers are much safer than they were way back when. youhe other hand, if compare the u.s. to great britain, you find that our faith on the rates are still three times what they are in britain -- our fatality rates are still three times what they are in

britain in construct -- and in construction is nearly four times. if you look state by state, there is an enormous variation in fatality rates that does not seem to be explained by the different work people do, but robert ahman -- but rather about different worker and employer behavior in the labour market, and perhaps different levels of regulation. it does seem that khoshaba -- osha, the organization that does oversee safety in the u.s. has some effect on the fatality rate. you look at machines are locked out before people try to do maintenance on them, and azko appeared to prevent of fatalities and amputations. there is effectiveness -- and that has appeared to prevent fatalities and amputations.

there is affecting as in all kinds of areas. and even though fattal the rates from injuries has gone down sharply, we still have the threat of disease. and surely, asbestos, which you know has been a serious problem, it causes many times the work injury fatalities that we have. we have not been a good job of accounting that. we need to take that into account as well. host: mr. mendeloff, what are some of the state for states that you have studied? and what are some of the less safe states? guest: the state for states include maine, oregon, washington. the less safe are alabama, arkansas, west virginia. there is something of a pattern there that defined. and one of them is that the states with lower fatality rates tend to have more liberal

workers' compensation benefits. that means that the cost of an injury to an employer in those states is higher, which probably gives them some incentive to do a better job of prevention in the workplaces. the costs in alabama and was for genarlow work. also, there are fewer unions in those states to protect workers. the and comes in those states are lower, which may mean that people are willing to work at riskier jobs than they are in the states where they are affluent. host: bill wiatrowski, do you have statistics on how many people are on disability because of work injuries by state? guest: our data looks at those people who are injured in the non-fatal injury. we have information on the

number of workers that are not fatally injured in a given year. as i mentioned earlier, about 4600 fatal injuries in a given year. there are close to the same not fatally injured during the year. these are recorded based on osha definitions. about one-third of them are people who have to take time away from work in order to recover from the injury. we have a fair amount of detail on whether or not ergonomically affected, which would be musculoskeletal injuries. this could be carpal tunnel, but also sprains and strains and back injuries due to some repetitive motion or bottling motion. host: john mendeloff, before we go to take some calls, i want to ask you whether you feel you have any feel for statistics on

how much companies spend on worker injuries in a given year? guest: we do not have any data on that are afraid. we once did a study, but i think it has been discontinued. host: the first call for our two guests come from jerry in columbus, ohio good caller: morning, peter. you are my favorite guy on c- span. thank you for taking the call. i want to quickly recount a story of my own son who is 46 years old and developed a non hodgkin's lymphoma. he had a good heart and the doctor told him he could be able to beat it. it took him six months. " we found out because he told our daughter, who lives in north carolina, that when he had worked years before for $3.75 an hour, they had him handling benzene. and if you have read the

politics of cancer by dr. epstein, you know that benzene is one of the most dangerous things. they did not have him wearing any protective gear. i would like to hear these two jenin address this issue. what i hear of these corporations were making millions and billions of dollars and they are crying crocodile tears as far as i'm concerned about regulations. it burns me output -- it burns me up because of this could be prevented in my opinion. by the way, a disabled veteran from the korean war. but that is beside the point. host: gerry, we appreciate your call. john mendeloff, any response for the caller? guest: and companies differ. some are pretty good at trying to comply with safety and health standards and protect their workers. and there are others who are not. for them, we need to have some

pretty good enforcement system to try to make sure that lapsus like the ones the caller described do not happen. we do not have a very good inspector in the u.s. osha has fewer inspectors per 1000 workers then provinces in canada do, or most of europe. we are hard-pressed, i think, to do a sufficient job of inspecting the employers who are not telling the line. host: bill wiatrowski, what events lead to fatal work injuries -- these are bls figures. exposure to harmful substances or environment. 9% of injuries have fatal work injuries due to what the caller was talking about guest: -- talking about. guest: that is right. although it, these aren't just injuries. -- these are just injuries.

the we do not look at illnesses. host: so that would not be included. guest: that would not be included. and and lives will have a long latency period typically, so we're looking at a key events. -- acute events. the things you see on this chart are things that happen immediately. it is some kind of violence or fall or contact with equipment. host: exposure to harmful substance would be a one time event? could that include a berndt? guest: it could. we have fires and explosions. a burn would more likely fall into that category. host: when you see the commercials for asbestos and our

practice, etc., with asbestos exposure -- exposure be included in the bls statistics? guest: generally not. that will be a latency issue. we only look at immediate injuries. we're looking at something over a short time frame. we are asking employers to maintain a record of their injuries and acute illnesses over the time frame of a year. asbestos-related disease will will take a long time to manifest itself. this particular vehicle for data collection is not really geared toward blogger term things. host: if i cut myself and the c- span lunch room with a plastic knife or a can opener and i went to get a band-aid, is that the type of incident that would be included? guest: for non fatal injuries,

we are following the osha rules for what is a recordable injury or illness. they have guidelines that they have put out for four years for the types of injuries that employers are required to record. certain types are required to be reported all the time. and then we survey about one- quarter of the employers and capture the statistics based on those injuries. in the case of a cut, it depends on the amount of what you need. it has to be something beyond first-aid. if he were to have to go to the emergency room. if you were to have to take days off. if you were on restricted duty and could not do your particular job and had to do some other job. those are the types of things that would be recorded. host: the next call comes from jerome in minnesota. caller: i would like to say it is very simple what is going on here. and these gentleman with their educations make it seem like it

is really complicated. we have open borders where he illegals came and -- where the legal came in and employers laid off workers and brought the illegals in to take their places. and now a lot of injuries are not even getting reported. and the ones that are, there are no unions there to do anything about it. and it is all about cheap labor, open borders, and america is suffering because of this. host: jirau, tie that into our topic, which is workplace injuries. caller: if you have been illegal immigrants that cannot even understand the language, there is usually an america that is ahead of -- he is the supervisor or the foreman where something.

and they are just being shown the basics of the caller: host: job economy -- the basics of the job. host: john mendeloff, do you look at the language barrier? guest: no, we haven't. and the inspectors, too, you can imagine that with the inspectors, if they go in and of the employees began-and the inspector does not, you will imagine that -- and eight employees speak spanish and the inspector does not, you can imagine that he will have difficulty determining where was unsafe there. host: explained that this statistic. guest: it is some sort of repetitive motion typically ended at a press itself in a

strain or a back injury, carpal tunnel syndrome, things like that. host: in 2011, the top nursing aides, orderlies, and 27,000 injuries. and that is a rate for full-time workers. guest: that is right, the occupation at the highest rates. and we have seen it can be from lifting, bending, where things like that. it is interesting because some of the occupations have high rates of ergonomic injuries as opposed to those that have high rates of fatal injuries. for instance, you see here, emergency workers and firefighters and different occupations than those juicy have fatalities. -- those that you see how

fatalities. host: john mendeloff, what is the cost for the american workplace in these injuries and fatalities? guest: in direct workers' compensation payments made, we are talking about $75 billion per year. first, the compensation is not complete. but secondly, it does not include anything related to the pain and suffering that people experience. it does not include very much for a fatality, although, obviously -- well, the federal government now is using figures on the order of several million dollars a year in lost due to fatalities, because that is how much people about your reducing the risks of those debts. -- those deaths.

i would say we are in the hundreds of billions of dollars each year. host: john mendeloff received his undergraduate degree at harvard, and his ph.d and his master's came from a university of california. our guest on the set, bill wiatrowski, he got his undergraduate degree in economics and our history from yale, a master's from george washington university. we have about seven minutes left with our two guests. glenn in detroit, thanks for holding. you are on the air. caller: thank you for dealing with my call. i am dealing with a nightmare. i work for chrysler and i was hurt on my job. the landing gear on the trailer was welded and it collapsed and the thing fell over. i got banged up. i am dealing in a state where the lawyers, doctors, even the government, the state magistrates, they favored

corporate. chrysler just got all this money and they are begging to stay alive. the unions are not worth anything. at least those that i'm dealing with. their doctors that are lying. they have lawyers that are lying. they have a government that is stacking the deck -- stacking the deck with a magistrate. what can i do with time running out? host: mr. mendeloff? caller: i would think there are a couple of different possibilities, most of them are legal. some of them might be a legislator who is sympathetic to your cause. but this is not going to be easy, obviously. i do not know whether a legal aid office would be willing to take your case, or at least suggest where you might go to get some relief without paying an arm and a leg up front.

you might try not a local union, but maybe their regional or national office of the union, where you might perhaps getting more support at a hearing. i'm just speculating. but do not give up. host: how often -- you keep statistics on how often companies are sued by workers because of injuries? guest: that is not something the bls keeps track of at all host: mr. mendeloff, is that something that you keep track of? guest: we try to, but it is very difficult. most lawsuits are settled without ever going to court. we tend not to have records of them that are publicly accessible. and workers' comp has a provision that is called the exclusive remedy provision, which is that if your -- you are

injured at work, you cannot sue your employer, but you are entitled to the workers' comp benefits regardless of who is at fault. there are ways of getting around that. you can sue a third party. for example, if someone is providing to asbestos, or the manufacturer of a machine was at fault, you can sue them. but it is usually very hard to sue your employer, but it does happen. host: very quickly, some bureau of labor statistics stats, the risk of fatal injury. and this is by industry. you can see natural resources and mining, it is a high risk for older workers. the orange line is a 65 and older workers. how many workers 65 and older are in our will work force? -- our in our work force? guest: the work force of 65 and older is now closing in on 10%.

it has been rising. that would be something like 12 million or so. host: is that more out of necessity, or because we are living longer and healthier? guest: think there are a variety of reasons. i think the social security retirement age has increased. we have seen employers provide your retirement benefits or different types of retirement benefits. and we have seen the economy house and downturns and people may feel they need to stay in the labour force. another factor is that there is a large bubble of the baby boom generation that is getting older. you see a large proportion of the labor force that is 55-64 and 45-54. those are people moving into older older ages -- al ages and they are larger portion of the work force. host: you can see the chart goes up abruptly at 65 and older.

and this chart, over 90% are fatally injured workers are men. males are in the blue. and finally, what leads to fatal injuries? falls, slips, and trips, 22% are fatally injured. next call comes from shelley in dallas, ore.. caller: could you address the workman's comp system a little bit more? it seems like it is big business anymore. my son 4.5 years ago was critically injured in a logging accident then suffered a traumatic brain injury. two years after his accident, i believe, he was strong armed into saddling with this workmen's comp system. -- in to settle in with the workmen's comp system. host: shelley, we are going to

get a comment. we're almost out of time. guest: should really get to ask a question. she host: asked about the workman's comp system. guest: there tends to be a lot of litigation in cases like your son's experience. that is now with the system was really designed to do. do. unfortunately, you need to have good representation to make sure that your rights are upheld in that process. it is not automatic. host: talking about america by the numbers. gentlemen, thank you. if people want to see some of these facts and figures -- cls.gov.

caller: rand.org/multi/chsw. host: thank you. in just a minute, leon panetta will be joined by canadian minister of national defense, peter mackay. they have a press conference scheduled at the pentagon. that will begin in just a minute. it is friday, so that means tomorrow is when book tv on c- span 2 begins at 8:00 a.m., an american history tv on the c- span 3 begins at 8:00 a.m.. so, if you need any information about what is on c-span this week, reminder, both the wisconsin and nebraska debates

will be live on c-span today. nebraska is at noon. wisconsin is at 9:00 p.m. eastern time. as you can see, this is about to start. we are bringing you live coverage. have a great weekend.

>> we are live here at the pentagon this morning for a briefing with secretary of defense, leon panetta and canadian minister of national defense, peter mackay. leon panetta news yesterday as he acknowledged that terrorists had planned and carried out the attack on united states consulate in benghazi earlier this month and killed four americans, including chris

stevens. we could get more on that today. also going on on our companion network c-span 2 right now, on land security secretary is discussing cyber security threats. at a summit taking place in the nation's capital. the center is holding a session and we will return to live coverage of that on c-span 2. counter prescription drugs is the topic of a conference taking place on c-span 3 allah de. the partnership for sick medicines is hosting the conference. you can see live coverage on that on our campaign and network c-span 3.

>> we are like your the pentagon for a briefing with leon panetta and canadian minister of national defense, peter mackay. this briefing expected to get underway in just a moment. very quickly, some other program in coming up on c-span today, we will hear from yemen's president at 1:00 p.m. eastern. he is here in washington set to speak at the woodrow wilson center. he is the president of yemen, he

took over in february after an uprising forced the previous president to step down after 33 years in power. we will have his address at 1:00 p.m. -- at the woodrow wilson center on c-span.

>> standing by live in the pentagon for the briefing by leon panetta and canadian minister of national defense, peter mackay to get underway shortly. running just a little bit late. some programming information -- our campaign 2012 coverage continues live within nebraska senate debate between bob kerrey and deb fisher. that is an open seat. we will have that courtesy of k ect. also, more 2012 coverage with live wisconsin senate debate. tammy baldwin will debate. that seat is open. the debate is hosted by the

wisconsin broadcasters association. that is live at 9:00 p.m. eastern. c-span will carry that, too. you can watch it online at c- span.org.

>> good morning.

it is always an honor to be able to welcome peter mackay to the pentagon. this is the second time i have had the privilege of hosting him here in washington, and the seventh time that we have met since i became secretary of defense. i think it is fair to say that we built a close working relationship between our two countries. we are not just neighbors, we are close allies and are working together on a number of issues. the close working relationship testifies to the importance of the larger united states-canada relationship, and to our defense partnership. our countries, as i said, we are neighbors, we are friends, and our military's are working closely together. not just for the security of our

two countries, but for the stability of the americas and the world. this morning, peter and i had of opportunity to discuss a range of issues. both of us will be attending. i look forward to joining him in uruguay. we have shared our perspectives in a need for greater security cooperation across the western hemisphere. especially regarding humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. we think that is a real potential for bringing countries together in a common effort and we will be discussing that further at the conference. we also discussed the upcoming nato defense minister, which will take place after that.

and how we can work together to implement the chicago summit priorities. one of these priorities is a building modern integrated capabilities on the part of nato forces, and the nato forces 2020 goal. on afghanistan, i think peter mackay canada's critical contributions. and lastly, we discussed regional security challenges in the middle east, including iran and some of the common concerns we share. on a personal note, later today, i want to point out that peter mackay will be accepting an award from the center for hemispheric studies for his contributions to its security

cooperation in the western hemisphere. it was then secretary perry who helped establish the conference of defense ministers of the americas. so the award is truly a fitting tribute to peter mackay for all that he is done with vance security in this hemisphere. thank you for your leadership. thank you for your friendship and continuing cooperation with the united states in trying to do with the security issues that both our countries face. i really do believe that the close ties between our two militaries and the tremendous contribution of the canadian forces is helping us provide greater security, not only between our two countries, but across the world. thank you very much. >> thank you for your gracious posting of my delegation here at

the pentagon once again. and to echo your sentiments workinge clothes ase relationship, i do not think it is overstated to say that there are not two more closer peoples on the planet when it comes to our values, when it comes to our commitment to global security, and our efforts are lasting, resilient, and we continue to work closely in so many sectors. but first and foremost, security. and like yourself, i have travelled a great deal in recent months, recent years and a fact. and i knew growing schedule that you keep. and we are very cognizant of the fact that your leadership having effected. what we have seen in afghanistan, in particular, our close relationship there, while it remains a challenging

mission, there is progress and there is hope. this is what we had always anticipated, is the eventual turnover of responsibility will allow this country, allow afghanistan, and hopefully the area to spread that security and spread that hope. i also know that our experience in joint operations as well as joint training exercises allows us to improve. and norad remains the primary security apparatus for north america and our shared responsibility for north american security, it is something that canada is deeply committed to, including the facility at colorado springs. we are very critical for the remarkable and injuring a security relationship that we have established over the years.

and, as well, spreading that security effort further into the americas. our humanitarian relief efforts. our efforts to continue to work both walter latterly with countries of the americas is a shared commitment. and as we prepare to attend the defense ministers of the americas, this is an opportunity for us to act unilaterally reach into the neighborhood, literally in our backyard, and improve partnerships and we emphasize our commitment of two nations working throughout the area. i am looking forward to the conference. i think this is a chance for canada and united states to up our game. so, i am personally very, very

grateful for the strong working relationship that we have enjoyed and continue to enjoy. having hosted do in canada along with their mexican counterparts, as well, the many nato meetings we have attended in brussels and other locations, and your posting in chicago this past summer. and throughout both our time in office, i daresay we have seen the defense relationship reached new heights. once again, leon panetta, i do appreciate your leadership, your friendship and your advice. i know one of the areas where canada does hope to establish greater credentials, if i can put it that way, is in the pacific. we take very close note of recent decisions and announcements that have been made about united states's intentions to continue their presence in the pacific. there similarly making

decisions in that regard. thank you. >> leon panetta, do you agree with where benjamin drew his red line, literally, yesterday at the un? are you any more assured now that there will not be an imminent israeli strike on iran? and peter mackay, if you could elaborate about the decision to withdraw from iran? >> i think we made very clear what the policy of united states is with regard to iran. and the president has made it clear, i have made it clear that united states'position is that we will not allow iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. this is about prevention, not containment.

that has been and remains the policy of the united states. and with regards to what israel will or will not do, you know, our hope is that both the united states and israel and the international community can work together to try to ensure that we achieved the same end, that iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon and we can resolve these issues peacefully as opposed to militarily. >> canada along with united states continues to have deep concerns, our prime minister has called iran the most dangerous place on the planet purity _ to those comments again in new york. and talk about the clear and present danger that iran poses to the world. after a great deal of deliberation, and a discussion with our allies included united

states, which took the considered opinion that our end -- our embassy's staff could no longer be exposed to risk, given circumstances inside iran. it was intended and sent a clear signal to the iranian regime that the sanctions and decisions of countries like canada are a reflection and a repudiation of their actions. they are posturing, their threats to their neighbors, to the world will not be tolerated. and so, our decision to close the embassy was in keeping with an increased sanctions, messaging, and a direct delivery of further importance that we place on iran of banding --of

abandoning its nuclear missions. >> on the same topic, with regards to the question of the red line, there seems to be a disagreement between him and the united states. where is canada on that? >> i think that there have been a number of red lines place already. and iran cut edged closer and stepped over those red lines on a number of occasions. when it comes to cooperation around the subject of inspections -- and the rhetoric that continues to come from the regime is on nerving -- unnerving.

his comments continue to cause problems around the world. canada has been a consistent, i think our decision to close the embassy is in keeping with clear signaling and communication and that we want to send to the regime. the prime minister has made canada's position very clear. and that is, we have a different expectation of iran than their current behavior. >> -- is that an argument? >> i think people can determine what the red line is. but the achieving of nuclear capability is the red line. when and where that kicks in is open to interpretation. >> mr. secretary, i want to ask about syria's nuclear-weapons.

i want to ask you with some specificity, groups are claiming that they had captured some military sites in iraq where they have found chemical weapons, components, capability, whatever it may be. so, do you now believe that rebels have a potentially found -- some of serious chemical weapons capability? if you believe that serious chemical weapons have been moved beyond the initial incident of many, many weeks ago? and what concerns does this now pose and the equation? does it raise the concern that iranian forces inside syria could be getting their hands on a chemical capabilities? >> first and foremost, as i have expressed, obviously, we

continue to have a concern about the security of cbw sites. we continue to monitor that. we are working with the countries in the region to ensure that we have the best information possible with regards to the sites and how they are being secured. at this stage, with regards to the major sites that we are looking at, we do believe that those sites still remain secured by the syrian military. there has been a intelligence that there have been some moves that have taken place, where exactly that has taken place, we do not know. i do not have any specific information about the opposition and whether or not they have

obtained some of this, or how much they have obtained. and just exactly what has taken place. but with regards to the movement of some of this and whether or not they have been able to locate some of it, we just do not know. the main point i would make is that we still believe that, based on what we know and what we are monitoring, the principal sites we are concerned about still remain. >> let me ask you to clarify, i think you are saying multiple moves of a chemicals. can you elaborate? are you seeing things move? tell me what you mean. >> to has been some intelligence -- there has been some intelligence with regards to some of these sites that

there has been some movement. in order for the syrians to better secure their chemicals. while there has been some limited movement, major sides still remain in place and secure. -- major sites remain secure. as to the movement of these materials and whether or not they have been exposed to possession by the opposition or others, that is something that i really do not have any firm information to confirm that it has taken place. >> of your saying they are secure -- >> the main sites, as we have determined, still remain secure. >> thank you very much. go back to your suggestion that the red lines are open to interpretation. the israeli prime minister drew a very clear one yesterday.

is that a valid red line in the opinion of the government of canada to warrant is really a tax on the ground? >> the more important question, paul, is that isn't the red line in the minds of the israeli? canada has been consistent in saying that we continue to encourage the international community, the united nations, to keep the pressure on the iranian regime, to pursue sanctions, to pursue them -- diplomatic pressure where and when we have the opportunity. unfortunately, those opportunities are becoming less and less obvious. they are less and less effective. the preferred option always will be and remains these alternatives to keeping the pressure on on iran to bring

about more acceptable behavior. trying to shift to the attitude of this regime and their leadership has proven to be enormous the challenging. >> my question was do you or do you not endorsed the prime minister of israel's red line. >> the israelis are going to make their own decisions. they will consult with their allies. they will continue to signal clearly their alarm over the nuclear ambitions of iran. we will continue to work with them, but these are sovereign decisions. i think it's fair to say that the united states, canada, still believe that the effective use of sanctions and diplomacy will be the preferred option in

trying to bring about corrections in the direction the iranians have been headed. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> bob kerrey and deb fischer, for an open sear. -- open seat.

tammy baldwin burt cole. you can watch it on line and live coverage on c-span. they are not meeting for legislative business. they are meeting in a pro forma session every few days. we will have that live under way at 11:00. until then, a look at today's headlines from "washington journal." host: is the politico from a few

days ago. the problem with the "blame stream" media. in times of political congress, blamed the media. whether justified or not --

that was in politico this morning. as was this one from yesterday evening.

that is is a little from that article in politico. begin with a call from kevin from virginia on our republican mind. good morning. what do you think about media coverage of campaign to thousand of? caller: its bias and leans against the republicans. one example, every day in "the washington post," the picture of barack obama always has the beautiful obama smile. it's the best picture they can find. then right below it, there will be a picture of romney sneering, angry, like he is yelling at the crown. in fact, there are thousands of pictures available of romney available with a beautiful smile on his face and looking positive and have me. they refuse to print those pictures. it is for people who do not read and just look at the

pictures. that is one thing that the media will do in newspapers. they do it all the time. they will find every glowing picture possible of hillary clinton that they can find. host: kevin, we will leave it there. beverly in missouri, on the democratic line. caller: good morning, peter. host: how are you? caller: i'm fine. you remind me of richard gere. [laughter] host: used to say i look like lance armstrong. i will take that one, too. caller: i mean in the way you dress. host: that was a little before my time.

caller: you should watch it. beverly, what the think about media coverage of the campaign? caller: i think they go with whatever the hot story of the day. i remember when obama was running against mccain and it seemed like every day i heard about the birth thing. it was terrible. it was just the story of the day. host: you are in missouri. are you seeing a lot of campaign commercials on the air? not for the presidential level? caller: no, very few. i think he has written off misery. even though the women here -- i

have not found one democrat. host: besides yourself? caller: that tells me how their mind is. they're not going to a vote for obama, but they're going to vote for romney. i ask this one lady i ride with who said she's not going to vote for president this time. i did not ask her why because i wanted to remain friends. she definitely wanted to vote republican b s rney because of what they will do the social security.

i have children and grandchildren and that is the way they are thinking. host: beverly nice to hear from you in misery. up next on the independent line is frank in tulsa, okla. that whenve noticed the commentators for the various media outlets talk about romney or obama that they generally fill in a lot of things that are off color about romney but nothing whatsoever about mr. obama. everyone has dropped his middle name, you know? hussein. it just seems like he gets a lot

of support, whether it's intended or not. host: a lot of facebook comments already on this topic. we will begin with melvin. the lame stream media are a bunch of obama lackeys. those are some of our facebook comments this morning. if you would like to continue the conversation on this topic, facebook.com/cspan.

here's "the wall street journal" this morning. swing states a tough sell for romney. according to "the wall street journal"/nbc poll, obama leads in nevada 49% to 47% and in new hampshire and north carolina. two of the three states both think romney a strong run the economy. that is one set of polls. now we have this other set we want to show you quickly. this is from rasmussen. they do a daily tracking poll. for a long time now, they have been showing this race as even.

this gets updated daily at about 9:30 a.m. they have obama and romney both up 46% nationwide. with leanders, 48% a piece. the swing state tracking poll is tied as well at 46%. this is from rasmussen reports. scott, a republican in colorado springs. hello, scott. what do you think about the campaign media coverage so far? caller: it's a joke. they are all totally biased. the thing that really gets me is

that you have these various news view" andbama on 'the letterman. he won't go on fox. he avoids the tough ques tions. it's just as bad here in colorado as anywhere else. i hope when they have the debate in denver that they ask the tough questions. people need answers. this foreign-policy mass, -- mess, he always watns transparency. host: you're in a swing state. are you seeing a lot of commercials?

caller: i go back and forth between denver and the suburbs. when they go out and do the polls, they're finding out that they're asking more democrats and coming back with a 10 point lead. from what i've seen, they're trying to go back to the 2008 turn out. host: that was got from colorado springs. up next in oregon on the democratic line. caller: it's nice to talk to you today. thank you for taking my call. the media tries to interject their opinions into the politics

of what's going on today. i do not care whether that is republican or democrat. i think the media has this about their ability to be neutral. one of the examples that i would give is to checked politifact. whenever they give up facts about the president and romney -- did he really do that stuff? then instead of coming back, if obama is not 100% on a point, they will find some way or some small percentage to show that he was not exactly a perfectly right therefore he is discredited, too. i'm wondering how does the media find to be objective and just to speak the truth instead of being

concerned about the fallout and the politics? host: from "the washington times," ralph nader saying obama should be poised for a landslide victory that will swing congress back instead he is running a selfish campaigned and has done little to help as party on capitol hill.

host: this is also in "the washington times," man behind insulting video arrested.

back to your calls on media coverage of campaign 2012. in illinois, independent line. caller: thank you for c-span. i think c-span is pretty fair in its coverage but the liberal media is totally biased. we even have this on a local level. they just run the major network news coverage. you see this on fox news but you never see it anywhere else. i just cannot believe that the vote is this close. people need to pay attention and

wake up. there is no reason for the job that obama is doing that he should be over 30%. host: the first caller this morning, kevin, talked about the photos in "the washington post." here's the front-page photo of both the president and mitt romney. post,"y's "washington there are these two photos from the campaign trail. you can see romney there in the suburbs of virginia. there is his photo. right below that, president obama. there are the two photos for the last two days in "the washington post." next call, republican in hedgesville, west virginia.

good morning to you. caller: you have to be deaf, dumb, or stupid not to be able to see the bias in the media. take, for instance, when mccain was running for president and "the new york times" wrote a front-page story that he was having an affair with this lady. they just put it out there to try to disparage mccain. i was watching diane sawyer on after this 47% thing came out with romney? the middle east was burning down. what's more important?

top secret conversations going out of the white house into "the new york times" puts lives at stake. they gloss over that period it's not covered. -- they gloss over that. it's not covered. if you do not see it, you're not watching the news. that's for sure. i tried to watch all three networks and fox because i want to know what the liberals think. is just no comparison. host: we will leave it there. from "the hill," another video from mother jones. they seized on a 1985 the video of romney where he discusses bain capital's business strategy including buying stakes in undervalued companies in the

plant and harvest them at a significant profit. it was posted by the liberal "mother jones" magazine and last week they posted an undercover video from a private fund- raising event. this was to commemorate the 25th anniversary. >> bain capital is an investment partnership the was formed to invest in start up companies and ongoing companies, take an active hand in managing them, and hopefully harvest them at a significant profit. it was formed september of last year. it was formed with $37 million in invested cash and an additional $50 million or so of a pull we can call upon of the deals are large enough that they require more than a $2 or $3

million initial investment. we are not particularly noted for having years and years of experience in financing. secondly, we had a concepts and experience that will allow us to identify potential value and hidden value in a particular investment canada. host: new jersey, a democrat. what do you think about media coverage? caller: it's definitely not balance out all. since reagan did away with the fairness doctrine, you can go on tv and say anything you like,

hence fox news, which would not exist. he is a roger ailes guy from nixon. it's not balanced at all. after the shows are over, with the republican speaker that was just the white only lying. when you ask the house why they let them do it they say it's the only way they can get them on tv. you guys put up "the washington times." start with "the national enquirer." with all downhill from there. it's not exactly a newspaper. the media coverage got to be where they tell these people anything. that's all i have to say. host: up next, an independent from ohio. you are on c-span. first of all, are you a true

independent? have you made a pure mind yet? -- your mind yet. caller: yes. i'm strictly for obama. romney, just like the previous caller said, he is nothing but strait lies. i'm going to be frank with you. i think half the country morons, illiterate, and flat out stupid. i pray for the country. the citizenry is dumb. they are flat out stupid. host: chances are we're going to get a response to that comment. caller: i hope so. maybe it will wait some of them up and have them read something and trying to understand. over half the country i think it's flat out stupid. host: your in ground zero when

it comes to the campaign. you think the media coverage has been fair? caller: as fair as it can be. they have to let them on even though they're going to lie because the only way they can get them on. tell a big enough why, because it has been that way with republicans for quite a few decades, and you will get away with it. host: the the president's campaign lies? caller: not at all. he's about as honest as we can get these days. host: gerald from columbus, ohio. and our facebook page --

>> the u.s. house is about to gavel in for a brief pro-forma session this morning. republican leaders told the sessions every few days to prevent the president making recess appointments. now live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the united states house of representatives will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker.

the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., september 28, 2012. i hereby appoint the honorable john culberson to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, reverend hemrick. the chaplain: in psalm 1:33 we read how good and pleasant it is when brothers live in unity. it is fallen on the house of zion for there the lord gives its blessing, life forever. lord, we pray that any world filled with the vision, you will bless this congress with the wisdom needed to generate a life-giving unity. amen.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-of house resolution 788, the journal of the last day's proceedings is approved. the pledge of allegiance will be today will be offered by the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. mr. van hollen: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on transportation and infrastructure be discharged from further consideration of s. 3624, and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: an amount to amend section 313-11 of title 49,

united states code, to permit states to issue commercial driver's licenses to members of the armed forces whose duty station is located in the state. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration of the bill? without objection, the bill is read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> -- mr. lewis: i ask to take from the speaker's table s. 3626 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of s. 3625. the clerk: senate 3625, an act to change the effective date for the internet publication of certain information to prevent harm to the national security or endangering the military officers and civilian employees to whom the publication requirement applies and for other purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration of the bill? the chair hearing none, without objection, the bill is read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on oversight and government reform, the committee on homeland security and the permanent select committee on intelligence be discharged from further consideration of s. 743 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 743, an act to amend chapter 23 of title 5, united states code, to clarify the disclosures of information protected from prohibited personnel practices, require a statement and nondisclosure policies, forms and agreements that such policies, forms and agreements conform with certain disclosure protections, provide

certain authority for the special counsel and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration of s. 743? the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: reserving the right to object and i will not object. i think the bills that we just passed by unanimous consent were important measures, and i strongly support the whistleblower protection bill which will protect federal employees against retaliation if they're shining a little sunlight on violations, abuses in the federal government and i do believe that we should adopt this measure. i also believe that the house should reconvene to conduct the other business before the house and with that i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. waxman. mr. waxman: thank you very much for yielding. i certainly won't object to this unanimous consent request, but i do want to point out that we here in washington ought to be doing our job. we have our nation's urgent

priorities. we need to increase jobs, strengthen our economy, prevent the fiscal cliff, protect medicare from cuts, address our long-term debt. we should be fighting for the middle class, not preserving tax breaks for oil companies and millionaires. we are out of session for this campaign in the earliest time ever. and for that reason, i will not object and yield back my time. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, i withdraw my reservation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman withdraws his reservation. does the gentleman from california have an amendment? mr. lewis: i would ask unanimous consent -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lewis of california. strike all after the enacting clause and insert a new text. mr. lewis: i ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the gentleman's request? mr. van hollen: reserving the right to object. i just want to understand, is this -- an amendment to the

whistleblower bill or is this the whistleblower bill? mr. lewis: it was an extensive amendment. i understand the gentleman is not going to object. i'm anxious to hear him withdraw. mr. van hollen: this is the whistleblower bill. i withdraw my reservation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman withdraws. the gentleman from california made a motion to dispense with the reading. is there objection to the gentleman's motion? hearing none, the reading is dispensed with. without objection, the amendment is agreed, the bill is passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute on the national priorities we're neglecting including middle-class tax cuts, responsible deficit reduction, the violence against women act, veteran benefits and protecting medicare. mr. lewis: reserving the right

to object. the speaker pro tempore: recognition of members is within the discretion of the chair. the chair is limiting the debate to matters before the house and such request is not in order at this time. parliamentary inquiry. state your inquiry. mr. waxman: during pro forma session, can the chair entertain legislative business, because i have further parliamentary inquiry? if we can take up legislation to create jobs and avoid the fiscal cliff, since we're taking up other items, i would like to know whether we could do business in the house of representatives to address the priorities in this nation. people want jobs. people want the -- the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a specific parliamentary inquiry? mr. waxman: my specific request is whether during a pro forma session can the chair entertain legislative business?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's asking a question matter scheduling and not regarding the rules of the house. the house is in session today to consider the business brought before the gentleman from california. and pursuant to section 3-b of house resolution

the nebraska senate debates coming up at noon eastern. here's a preview. [video clip] >> we have been talking a lot about the presidential campaign this morning, but there are a couple of senate debate this morning that c-span will carry live that you have been covering. what's been happening in wisconsin? >> it has been one of the most interesting senate races. very competitive. president obama seems to have pulled ahead by about five points in the latest poll. some of that has helped changed the trajectory of the race. earlier this month, the republican governor tommy thompson seemed to have momentum. at this point his rival tammy baldwin seems to be within the

margin of error or a little to head out >> . why is that? guest: my best guess is that the baldwin surge corresponds with president obama getting some distance from romney. it still is competitive. governor thompson was perceived the best republican nominee. he had a very competitive primary. so wisconsin suddenly was back in the republican column. host: this tonight their first and only debate? guest: i don't know, but it's going to be an interesting evening, because governor thompson is a statewide grand. he's known as tommy and not the governor. he will seek to label baldwin as

a liberal. she is one of several members of congress who is from a single district and is trying to run statewide. she will try to define herself in a positive manner and he will try to put her in a. negative host: we will broadcast that said 9:00 p.m. eastern, tommy thompson and tammy baldwin in their debate. there is another debate we will carry at noon eastern time. nebraska, give us an update. guest: that once seemed to be competitive around late winter, early spring. democrats have been back and forth. the seat opens up because conservative democrat ben nelson decided not to run for reelection. former senator bob kerrey decided not to run and then he

got back in and democrats were elated. but the republican nominee debra fischer beat the establishment- favored republican. she has proven to probably be a better candidate than the establishment. you have the well-known male candidate against the little known female. most recent polls show this is falling out of the grasp of democrats. host: what is the margin? guest: about 15 points in a local newspaper poll. host: is there a reason? he is a nebraska brand, tommy thompson and bob kerrey. host: republicans were naming him big apple bob even before

he got in. they have done everything they can to paint him as a new york liberal. nebraska has just become a conservative red state. >> we will bring you that debate getting under way at noon eastern on c-span. until then, a look at how wall street is dealing with issues related to campaign 2012. joining us from our new s mariaudios i bartiromo, the anger of "closing bell." she also writes a column monthly for "usa today." here are some headlines saying

that we are adding jobs. how would you describe our economy today. guest: the economy has worsened. 8.1% of the country without a job and that does not include those that have simply stopped looking. the unemployment rate is more like 11% or 12% of the country. the durable-goods numbers yesterday indicated the big- ticket items sales, things like washing machines and other expensive items, have also slowed down. and then you have the gdp numbers yesterday, which showed growth was revised downward, economic growth was revised downward to show a number of 1.3% growth, which is pretty anemic. that's down from 1.7%.

things have worsened in the last couple months from that report. and corporate america right now is pretty strong. corporate america over the last four years, since the financial crisis, has slimmed down. the company's largest and the small part lean because they have -- company's large and small are strong because they have cut down and are sitting on cash. the issue is they are not spending it. they're not spending it because there's so much uncertainty in the economy. they don't know what the regulatory environment will look like next year. they don't know what demand will look like next year. because of these uncertainties as a result of the fiscal cliff and the fact we have not had any policy is really coming out of

congress and the white house to really fix this, it's all been monetary policy, the federal reserve has really been the only game in town to really provide stimulus for this economy. we don't have an energy policy and have not had a budget in three years. as a result, businesses are waiting to see and what happens with the election and waiting to see what their lives will look like, the tax rates, regulation, etc. they are upheld by the health care expense, so they're waiting until after the election to decide if they will hire new workers and put new money to work. we really aren't in standstill mode in the u.s. economy right now. caller: another story --

i want to ask you about using the word "brace." guest: i think the president has had an antagonistic relationship with business. i think that's pretty clear. over the last several months he did lose the independent vote and the business vote. if the numbers show that he is actually winning, i could understand that now they are disappointed, because they were counting on some competition. but i don't think you can really tell right now.

it's hard to know how accurate the polls are. in some cases i think the media is pulling democrats and other cases people don't necessarily tell you what they will do. it's likely we will see a very close race. it could go either way. i am just not sure right now how accurate the polls are. but i understand a word "brace," because the business community has looked at this presidency and have been disappointed because what i'm hearing from -- and i'm able to speak to them all day long on cnbc -- and what they tell me is oftentimes they are asked to visit the white house. for example, when the president was selling his health care

package he invited a number of health care ceo's to the white house under the idea he wanted to get their input and to hear what was going on in healthcare and how the legislation should be altered to address some of the issues he would hear from them. but what i heard from virtually every single health care ceo that went there is they did a photo op and the president spoke to them, gave a speech, basically, and then left. what i'm hearing increasingly is that he is not necessarily listening to the executives that go to his office. he has his own ideas. regardless of whether or not they come there to explain their so-called polite or what they would like to see in order to put more money into the economy and hire new workers, he's not listening to them.

truthk that there's some to the idea the president has a very small circle of advisers who he decides policy with. he does not really take the input of business people who are on the ground, who are knee-deep in working on the economy and have the ability to hire. i do think the business community has been disappointed with being unable to have a voice in any way. so they are in lockdown mode. host: just reinforce what you just said, from bob woodward's new book, he recounts a conversation between former the rise and ceo and valerie jarrett from the white house. bel's a conversation with pre jarrett bush according to bob woodward --

guest: the president has an idea of what's needed for the economy and that's where he is focused, rather than speaking to business people saying here is what the demand picture looks like or here is what we need to ensure that we will put more money into the economy. i think there's a real debate right now. a real debate about the solutions to the way forward in this country. i think the business community

believes that in terms of the way forward to you need to create an environment that is favorable for business so that that they will put their money to work on the economy. one key example is the tax on profits that these businesses, american multinational businesses, derived from overseas markets and bring back here. there's a big debate. business feels that they are taxed twice. taxed in a local market, whether it's asia or europe, and then they are taxed again when they bring money back to the u.s. there's a big movement by executives today to eliminate that second tax so that they could bring some of the money back into the u.s. rather than investing it in plants and people overseas. we have been unable to see any change on that. in addition, small business -- i was with the small business administration and a number of

small businesses, a lot of these businesses are private businesses, small businesses, not multinational large companies, but this is really where the job creation in the country comes from, small business. what small business says is they oftentimes pay the ordinary income tax rate as opposed to the corporate tax rate because they just are smaller and have a smaller number of employees. and so, they fall under the ordinary income tax bracket. when we talk about higher taxes on millionaires and higher taxes on anybody making more than to a hundred thousand dollars, it's not just individuals that it impacted by that. it is small businesses. small businesses are expecting their tax rates to go up. so they will wait to put money to work. they will wait to hire anyone, because they want to make sure they understand what their expense side of the business will look like.

so you have small business as well as multinational companies that get truly impacted by these tax rates and by this uncertainty it, so there probably will be a lot more reluctance and they would be less willing to put money to work, which is a problem, because we need their money to work and they're hiring in this economy in order to release the growth. at the end of the day we need job creation and economic growth. neither of which are happening, because of the uncertainty out there. host: maria bartiromo every afternoon on cnbc. she is also the host of the wall street jungle report which airs sunday evening at 7:30 p.m. and she also writes a monthly column for usa today. she joined cnbc in 1993. the first journalist to report live from the for the new york stock exchange in 1995. lucia from lansing, michigan.

caller: hi. i'm happy to speak with maria. she is exactly where i'm at. we were about to expand our business to a second restaurant. we could not because of what was happening on wall street. then we waited. "give it a year or two and the president would turn it around." he did not turn it around. my brother's job at gm was saved by president obama. the fairness that the talks about is crap. my restaurant has to make $1 million for me to pay all the employees and the 33 taxes saved by president obama.

we have in business. me and my husband only make $100,000. i pay 39% in taxes which is $30,000 or more. i'm happy to speak with maria. he pays $3,000. how is that there? host: thank you. maria bartiromo? guest: it is unfortunate. you have a large swath of people that are getting impacted by significant taxes. look at the numbers. it is debatable whether this group should be combined with the so-called millionaire's and billionaires. raising taxes on people, individuals making more than $250,000, that is a risky proposition. a good friend of mine works for government.

her husband works for government. they bring in about $250,000. they have three kids. after they pay for food and kids and gas, there is nothing left over. they are living pretty much close to paycheck to paycheck. do not get me wrong. i am not saying $250,000 is not a lot of money. because it is. it doesn't add up. it is those people who are going to pull back and they are going to say, "i did not have the extra wiggle room to buy a new car." to buy a washing machine.

all the things to keep the economy chugging along. the taxation debate is real. this is one of the big things that is dividing the country. host: bill in massachusetts. hi, bill. caller: good morning. maria, young lady. i can remember when you used to do news cut-ins at all hours of the morning. , with frontguy brake jobs in the parking lot -- you would have done brake jobs in the parking lot. i would like to talk about the national debt and the dumbing down of america. i don't think the american people can grasp what $1 trillion is or maybe $1 million. i would like to offer a suggestion.

if you down the road would take on the dollar bill, it is 6 inches wide. when the government spends a dollar bill, they borrow two and 5/8 inches of that dollar bill. that only leads 3/8 of an inch until we neemeet the fiscal cliff. something visual like that might cause people to think a little bit longer. host: we got the point. guest: i think bill is onto something. it is hard to give your arms around what $1 trillion is and really it to yourself. -- and relate it to yourself. we faced a debt of $16 trillion in this country.

it is ok when things are going well. but at some point -- at some point, when you are beholden to that lender, you make concessions. oftentimes that lender will make demands. at some point, who is to say we did not hear from the chinese who might say, we will buy your debt year treasuries. -- your dad and your treasuries and yourr debt treasuries but we want a higher interest rate. the federal reserve has been providing so much stimulus to the economy. interest rates have been at rock-bottom levels. do not kid yourself. when interest rates start to move, and it can happen at any

time, interest rates will spike and a sharp level. -- at a sharp level. there will be problems in terms of the federal reserve stopping any run away rate -- we do need tax reform. we have been talking about tax reform for a long time. why is it that there is an opportunity for people to manipulate the numbers and pay a lower rate than others? because there are too many loopholes. a lot of economists say if you lower corporate taxes to a level that makes it a favorable environment for businesses, businesses will start hiring again. you could eliminate the loopholes. so much these easy ways for people to pay lower rates and that would broaden the tax rates. this is an idea that has been bandied about yet nobody is

moving on this. and even the president has not changed the tax code. to complain that people are not paying their fair share and complain about the tax code seems strange. i do think the deficit is a real issue. you cannot borrow for ever. look at what is going on in spain and italy. and throughout europe. you are walking on eggshells. at some point this debt will come back to haunt us. we do need to recognize that you cannot borrow for ever. we have learned that from europe. when you start implementing sharp austerity, you will see a

social unrest throughout madrid. as we speak, you have protesters pouncing on the floor of parliament because they do not want the austerity. we can i get to the point. -- we cannot get to that point. that is a dangerous scenario. we need to hear our leadership recognize and communicate that this is an issue but we are handling it. we haven't really seen that. host: this story this morning from "the financial times." we will show you that article. and the current unemployment rate of 8.1%. with all these numbers and worries, why is the stock market at 13,500 points? should we look at that as an

indication of economic strength or health? guest: there is a disconnect in the stock market versus the real economy. the stock market is trading on the federal reserve. remember, this latest act by the fed is completely open ended. the federal reserve will be buying mortgage-backed securities to the tune of $40 billion a month and interest rates will be at rock-bottom rates until 2015. savers are getting the short end of the stick. if you have your money in a money-market account, you're getting no yield with a simple savings account. there aren't any alternatives to stocks. you have your money in a money-

market account and basically you losing money. what is the attraction to keeping your money under the mattress? it is a bigger potential for reward if you put your money into the stock market, particularly companies that pay dividends. in some cases you have competitive yields. money has shifted into equities. the only alternative left for any yield. everybody is searching for yield and for some kind of an interest rate. there are unintended consequences of the monetary policy. which is why we need a fiscal policy. this fiscal cliff is also very dangerous. you have tax cuts which will expire at the end of the year

simultaneously when spending programs will expire. americans will face -- those people in the middle in terms of income -- they will face the highest tax increase since world war ii. that will happen at automatic. that will happen in january 1 unless these guys get together and do some kind of a grand bargain or an extension. there is such hatred and they cannot make a deal. the tax cuts will expire. the spending programs expiring is another problem. there are federal programs for defense companies, health care companies, they get federal dollars so they can do those programs. those programs are going away january 1. these companies, they will have

to notify employees that their jobs are cut. we'll see a host of layoffs at year and as a result of ignoring the fiscal cliff. -- at year end. that is why there is some much talk about it. i do think that we're walking on shaky ground. the president has not been able to provide the leadership required to get these groups together, the right and the left. part of the job of the commander in chief has to be to bring these groups together. for congress to say we're going on vacation and going away after the election with nothing done about the fiscal cliff is truly irresponsible. there is no leadership in terms

of bringing these groups together and that is sad and leaving all these people who'll get caught in terms of these jobs. people are hanging in the balance and i find that extraordinary. host: we have a tweet for you, maria bartiromo. guest: i think small business is worried about falling under the ordinary income level. their taxes will go up. the biggest impact would be a change in the tax code. including lowering corporate tax but eliminating the loopholes. that would eliminate the opportunity for private equity and hedge fund managers to file under capital gains, which is

much lower than when their -- much lower than ordinary income, and have to go to ordinary income. you create a better environment for business. they will see higher expenses in terms of their tax rate. they will put that money to work in terms of hiring more people. remember, these companies are also facing an increased tax surrounding health-care. that is another issue. i here at the expense of health -- i hear that the expense in health care has risen considerably and it will continue to rise. if we were to see a change in the health-care costs, that would eliminate a big pressure for small business. i hear upset over the tax code and over health care expense as well as the regulatory

environment, which includes a handful of fees. host: next call comes from boston, jerard. independent line. caller: hi, maria. i look at this debt thing. you need to protect the money. protect the money to bring the debt down. the economy would be saved by protecting the dollar. but my question is -- the government takes in $four trillion in taxes but borrow money from china. they take in $4 trillion and are borrowing $6 trillion. for these programs like to give to israel and foreign aid.

who is giving these loans? guest: you have china buying our treasuries. there are not a lot of alternatives out there. look at the world today. the u.s. is the best house in a bad neighborhood. europe is a mess. china is slowing. it is and attractive alternative for china. when you're on the other side of a trade and you know your competitor is under pressure financially, you hold the cards in some regard. you do not want to get to a point with the chinese say, "we will do this but we want higher interest rates." spike when rates could and impact the economy. it would be much costlier for average folks because rates would follow suit and we would

see a spiraling out of control. you do not want some other player having the cards like that. in addition, you need to see economic growth for this country. we are seeing growth contract. you have 1.3% growth. it is just ok. it is not where we should be at this moment in the recovery. next year as a result of going over the fiscal cliff, most economists say will see a recession in 2013. because of those layoffs and mentioned and an increase in taxes. if we were to see a recession in 2013, once again we will see interest rates react. it is about the bond market. it is not necessarily about the

stock market as much as it is about the bond market. host: jim is in south carolina, republican. hi, jim. caller: good morning. romney pays taxes at a rate of 14% and the obama camp assailed that. they are the ones that created the tax rate. they're the ones that could've done something about the tax rate. secondly, how can bill clinton get away with clement the republicans were the ones who deregulated and created the financial problems when he repealed glass-steagall in 1999? that was the underpinning of the whole problem. in 10 short years, all the big

banks went under, almost all of them. how can he get away with that? that was one of the hallmarks the tv campaign a bump. does he not want to admit it? how does he make that statement? host: maria bartiromo? guest: it is political football. it is all politics. number one on the tax code. we could have seen changes over the last few years. aboutre going to complain people not paying their fair share, change the tax code. it is all legal. they can use loopholes, and so they would do it. anybody would. it is not illegal.

it is what they could pressure due because of loopholes are available to them. lower the corporate tax rate and broaden the base. eliminate the loopholes. we have not seen anybody do that. we are hearing a lot of attacks on wealth and business and as people who supposedly are not paying their fair share but there is nothing that anybody is doing about it. questionrt of an open why. they want the constituents' vote of that person who is paying a lower rate. as far as bill clinton -- bill clinton is a seasoned, amazing politician. he is loved on both sides of the aisle. he came out and he talked about the economy. what he has going for him is the record of balancing the budget and having a budget surplus.

that was aorget moment in time when bill clinton was overseeing this great country when we were in the dot.com boom. it was a new era. going into the year 2000. the 1990's were very vibrant. you are talking about a different economic time that he was overseeing. he oversaw a balanced budget and a budget surplus, giving him that kind of credibility in terms of economics. now i will say this. i was talking to bill clinton about the fiscal cliff. i said straight out to him -- you can pull up this interview on line. so i said to him, what do you think about the fiscal cliff? first he entered something political. then i followed up -- "does that mean the tax cut should be

extended?" he was backed into a corner. he said everything should be extended. .e're in a recession we ran that interview. an e-mail said he had to retract something that he said. i said, what? bill clinton is a smart politician. "what are you retracing?" "the tax cuts should be extended for people making under $250,000." then i call them later and said, what is going on here? apparently, the obama people call the clinton people and said you need to go out and take that statement back. it was a pretty big brouhaha. but i think it is pretty clear where bill clinton stands. bill clinton things everything should be extended. even the right now, i did not

think he will repeat that. host: is it tough to get a second interview with him? guest: absolutely. i think right now the president -- he will not go down that road and talk about taxation. he does not want to make any mistakes. one thing about bill clinton -- bill clinton says what he feels, for the most part. he will not come out and say something to your face that he does not believe. he is avoiding that conversation. host: jim from oklahoma. please go ahead with your question. caller: more of a statement than a question. i have a small business have had it for over 50 years. i pay 5% income tax -- tax on

income versus 35% back in 2008. this president has done nothing to stimulate the economy for the small businessman. inre sitting here running idle right now. we had to reduce our employees. i would love to step up my employees again by cannot do it. the way he has run it the past three years. because his motivation is stimulating jobs in the government, not in business. it is the business jobs that pay the taxes that allow for the government jobs. host: maria bartiromo? hearinghis is what i'm across the board from business people today. again, it is the cost of health care. the cost of regulation.

it does feel like an ideology to make government bigger and not necessarily do enough for businesses to feel like they want to or can hire new workers. this will be a problem. we have to ask ourselves, what is the priority in this country? is the priority to create jobs? if that is the priority, we need to come up with ways to do that. that does not include scare tactics and taxes are going to go up. because they will : lock download -- because they will go in lock down mode. this is not a red or blue situation. this is about money. this is about encouraging

businesses to put money to work and create new heads to the payroll. that is not being done. i'm hearing it throughout business. time.come on all the i have this from small businesses. i say that it makes sense. if i had a small business, what i'd hire more people if i had no idea what my tax rate and health care expenses were going to be? no idea who will be overseeing my business and what fees are attached to that? of course i would wait. the longer we wait, the longer we will look at economic growth falling. host: time for a couple more calls with maria bartiromo. caller: good morning. you said a lot of companies are sitting on their hands.

i look at apple. they must be doing something because everybody in new york city was lining up to buy their products. some people want to sit on their money for spite. there is nothing you can do about that. but also you blame the president for congress not getting together. he did not mention john boehner. -- you did not mention john boehner. business is always a risk. if you're not willing to take the risk, lets someone else do it. guest: there is a lot of blame to go around in terms of congress. john boehner should be providing leadership to make sure a deal gets done. you mention the bob woodward book. bob woodward has interviews with john boehner and the president. the debt ceiling debate just fell flat.

america is hanging in the balance about the amount of -- while these guys fight about the amount of taxes and spending. here we are one year later at the same stalemate waiting for this fiscal cliff. apple has been a very successful company and a big product that -- and it makes products that people want. apple is sitting on $40 billion of cash. much of that money is overseas. that money is not coming back here unless there is an environment that is favorable to apple. i do not know where apple is spending its money in the u.s. i can tell you that -- that is one of those companies -- if they brought the money back to the u.s., they could be a bigger contributor to this economy.

apple is a proud american company. look ons not forget -- the other side of your iphone, says "made in china." host: this is jon on our republican line. caller: hello. host: hi. caller: it is and not to talk to -- it is an honor to talk to you. i watch cnbc. i have a question -- does any of the money from qe3 going toward europe's debt? and i have one more quick question. why is gold going up when the dow is also going up? it seems like the dow should go down when the gold is going up.

i will take your call over the tv. thank you. host: maria bartiromo. guest: thank you so much. on qe3, the qe3 will be the federal reserve buying back mortgage-backed securities at a rate of $40 million a month. -- $40 billion a month. does that lead to job creation? does one eualqual the other? there is a debate about that. people say the fed throwing money at the economy will not mean new jobs created. it will mean money moving into hard assets and higher-yielding assets like stocks. that has been the case so far. we have of t money that we -- we have other money that we

sent to europe through the imf fare other programs. >> we have a couple of minutes left in this discussion. our campaign 2012 coverage continues with the nebraska senate debate between bob kerrey and deb fischer. this is from omaha, nebraska. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the u.s. candidate for

senate for nebraska will answer questions from a panel of journalists. please join me in welcoming the republican candidate, deb fischer. [applause] and the democratic candidate, former u.s. senator bob kerrey. [applause] ur panelists are key ttv reporters. each candidate will have 90 seconds to answer. they will be given 30 seconds of

rebuttal time. our audience includes guest some of both candidates. we ask you to refrain from any displays of approval or disapproval and it will hold your applause to the end of the debate. we thank the omaha community playhouse for providing this beautiful of venue. we begin with our opening statements, one a minute long each, and under rules agreed by candidate, a coin flip will determine who goes first, and that his candidate fischer. >> i introduced myself to the breast cancer as i travelled across the state, because -- i introduced myself to nebraska i travelled across the street.

i work with colleagues in the legislature, and we have taken on issues. we have cut spending, balance our budget, and we provided tax relief. that is what we do in nebraska, and that is what we need to do in washington. nebraskans are saying enough. they are ready for real change we need to have somebody there who is gone to take the nebraska out way to washington, and i promised that is what i will do. >> let me assure you that i am still bob kerrey. i looked a little different than i did before, hopefully a little wiser. you know me, you know i went to war, came to nebraska and started a business. i was your governor when we had

a recession, and we came through for you. i was your senator when the nation had a recession, another large deficit. we got the job done. i am a candidate because washington is a mess. both parties have made commitments that we cannot keep, and nobody wants to do anything about it. i promised to go to washington to change our congress, and i promised to work with republicans to get our budget balanced so we can set a different course. my opponent promises more of the same. she signed a pledge at that will be very bad for nebraska. i promised bipartisan solutions, and i promised to get the job done. >> thank you. the coin toss determined which candidate will be the first to answer question. it goes to senator kerrey. >> what would you say to people

who are unemployed and had given up looking for work altogether? >> we have work to do. washington has not been able to get the job done. we got to have fundamental change in congress. i am advocating a 45-word change in the constitution to have the congress forced term limits of 12 years. give the congress permission to ban all outside money and limit what they can spend in campaigns. money is corrupting campaigns and making it difficult to simplify our tax cuts, or to get a farm bill. congress has become too partisan and too difficult to do the things that that the people want to have done. >> what i would say to people is we need to change the direction our country is headed. we have had over 40 months of unemployment over 8%.

in nebraska, our rate is 4%. we have created jobs in the state. that is what we need to do in the united states as well. i have a jobs plan. we need to back government away from small business, need to have government reduce regulations that are such a burden on businesses so they can create jobs. we need to reform the tax code. we need to reduce energy costs. we need to help small businesses to create those opportunities. >> senator kerrey, have 30 seconds. >> he signed a pledge that would allow you, that you should pay the same texture employees pay. your balanced budget unemployment would double. i have examined the amendment,

and it would double unemployment. >> i disagree. with regard to the buffet role, if you are going to tax every millionaire, that can run a the government for 17 hours. let's look at businesses create jobs and make opportunities in the state, and we can do it by reducing regulations, reduce it by having an energy plan, by repealing "obamacare." >> the next question. >> a question in this cycle is are we better at today than we were four years ago? are we? no, we are not better off with our economy, with our

position in the world. we have seen a failure in leadership with this administration and with congress that is locked in gridlock. we need to send leaders to washington who will make tough decisions. i have shown you that i have been effected in nebraska in taking on tough policy issues. we have worked together, made those tough decisions. that needs to happen in washington and in washington as well. we need to reform washington. ns know. andn we disagree on how we need to change it. we need to create jobs. you will hear me say that a lot because i believe that private businesses can create those opportunities, can create those jobs. not government. it is backing government away, away from all the rules and

regulations. we need to reduce the corporate tax rate. 35% -- that is the highest among all our trading partners. we need to close loopholes so businesses or invest. >> in the nebraska, i would say decidedly yes. we have record farm income last year, leading family income is up. if you look at the success of agriculture, ethanol, and we have 1000 jobs up there, including great success to bring in another hundred good jobs for our state connected to our success and ethanol. our success in a program that

has reduced the cost of fuel and increase our energy independence. in nebraska, we are better. we would not be at senator gets enacted.n we do not need a constitutional amendment. we balance the budget in the 1990's, by making difficult decisions. it got the job done. we were paying off debt. to oppose a constitutional amendment would be devastating to the state of nebraska, and i asked nebraskans to examine those facts. >> i would ask people to examine the facts and examine our records. we have done well in the state of nebraska. i am very proud that i've worked

with my colleagues and with the governor and we passed legislation to grow businesses. we passed super advantage act. we are taking care of innovation. we have done it in nebraska. that is what i want to take to washington. >> in the tea party debate, it was pointed out that the press that balanced its budget into the asinine and 2010 as a consequence federal stimulus. the federal government would not have that flexibility under her constitutional amendment. it will destroy jobs, close rural hospitals, make it difficult to fund the crop insurance bill. it has real consequences, and they are all negative. >> the army national guard

soldiers in nebraska had been deployed four times in the last decade. as the war on terror put too much burden on citizen soldiers, and what do you see as role of guard soldiers in the next decade? >> yes, we have two wars and we have borrowed money from china to do it. we have a story today that talks about the backlog in v.a. claims. in two dozen one we were spending $26 billion -- in 2001 we were spending $26 billion in veterans benefits. not only do we impose a disproportionate burden on the people, but don't you think that this the stuff have a long tail on it, and it makes it much more

difficult to solve our budget problems. it is one of the reason that the fischer plan will not work. the most decorated veteran, and we met with former g.i.'s, and you can see the look in their eyes. they have problems, and we can help them. we have one of these kids every day who is killing themselves. it puts disproportionate pressure on them. i am grateful for what they have done, of course. >> i think our service people, and i think their families for the sacrifices that they make, for their dedication to this country, for their patriotism. is it a burden? of course it is. they willingly step forward and made the sacrifices for us. my concern when it comes to

defense is we're headed to a fiscal cliff. we're looking at sequestration. we're looking at $500 billion in cuts to the department of defense. whit sequestration, if that happens, that is another $500 billion. we're looking at the smallest army since 1950. that cannot happen. we need to make a commitment to our military. national security is about the bust in port. when you have the director of the department of defense, the secretary, saying this is a bullet to the head, this is devastating, he will take whatever he can get. we're at a fiscal cliff, and these cuts to our defense are at the forefront of it. >> your balanced budget

amendment will take the sequester and multiplying it by at least seven. the cuts that would be imposed -- hearing slogans in support of the veterans, but the amendment will not support it. neither presidential candidate -- 8% has never served in the military, and when it comes to the time when they come home, it matters. >> i thank you for your service to our country. but i believe everyone would make a sound decision, and it would be a hard decision any time we send our young men and women into harm's way, and i would take that decision seriously. >> as we know by now, 47% of

americans do not pay income tax. some have argued this is proof we have become an entitlement nation. the you agree or disagree? >> i have been asked that, it since it has been made. i have my own views. when i have served in the nebraska legislature i have said there are four priorities , public education, public safety, public infrastructure, and taking care of those who cannot care for themselves. that applies to our federal government as well. there are people that need help, and government needs to help those people. that is a given, and to make comments on both sides in trying to divide this country and divide the people of this country, that serves no purpose. people sometimes need help, and government should be there for them. >> i have been more careful

looking for this video cameras when i am answering questions. [laughter] there is a grain of truth in it. i do not think a social security beneficiary is a mixture or a disabled veteran is a miniature. -- moocher. we have made commitments and the cannot afford to keep them. enormously important programs, but it is a $60 trillion unfunded liability. it is not fair. fischer said nobody over 40 should not have to pay more. we have got to solve this problem, and i believe that the

social security plan i have that is the foundation for balancing our budget. it is way too easy to demagogue this. i have listened to obama and both who'd demagogue and misrepresent the facts. i do not regard people getting government benefits as miniaturoochers. if we do not address it, it will not be long before we are greece. >> the government has to honor its commitments. we need to honor commitments we made our seniors, and that is why i say that me be clear, no one over the age of 40 should see their benefits cut or their taxes increase. promises were made by government and promises need to be capped. we need to make sure that all

happened, and i believe there is bipartisan support to do that. nobody is going to watch social security failed. >> the promises are made to secure the votes of people over 65. since world war ii we have been doing it. it is a $60 trillion unfunded liability, and are we going to solve the problem? will we ignore it, and if we ignore it, god help the united states of america. >> recently at the national convention, republicans called for a constitutional amendment banning all abortions with no exceptions for rape or incest. where to you stand on this proposal and why? >> i trust women to make that decision. there are a lot better ways to reduce the number of abortions. we got to think about why our

law enforcement community --our working mothers are in trouble. we have to get free natal care for them. have too many children coming into kindergarten behind, and if we lose them in kindergarten, we lose them for ever. 2500 kids in a program here in omaha that are provided refuge that are being sexually abused in their own home. we got to pay attention to them, and we got to help them and the moms and the community leaders who are trying to help this problem. i do not think we should regulate women in making these decisions. it does not stop there. there is lots more that needs to make sure that that children have a fair and decent opportunity to live to their full potential. >> i am pro life. i believe in the sanctity of

life. i believe there should be an exception made for the life of the mother. what we are looking at is an economy that is hurting families. we're looking at an economy that tends to hurt women more. the situation we're in the last four years, it is hurting women. women are not able to find jobs. they have seen decreases in their pay. when the to help families buy having jobs created so they can provide for their families, said they can save for college. when it comes to decisions on life, i am pro life. >> there is a lot more ways to be pro life than to say women cannot make their own reproductive decisions, up to and including that they have to prove that they were forcibly raped. she voted against providing

prenatal care. it was not undocumented. we have got to take care of these kids and we cannot just give slogans. we have to put more time and money into our kids. >> the comments made by the gentleman from missouri were offensive. i cannot support this comment at all. what i do support and what i have supported and we have seen in nebraska are parental notifications, our protections for unborn children. that is in port. it was passed with bipartisan support. >> the next question is for senator fischer. >> one thing i have heard is voter frustration with partisan politics. with that in mind, talked about one current or recent u.s.

senator from across the aisle whom you admire and why. >> get this question of lot. it is important to be bipartisan. i always say to folks look at my record in nebraska. you're not elected chairman of a major committee, you are not elected leadership if you are a partisan person. we have worked across the aisle on a number of issues in this state in taking on this really tough policy issues and building consensus. that is how you get things done. i would hope to do that in washington. before, i have mentioned a couple times names, senator warner, who have expressed interest in making spending cuts and reforming the health care act, so those are individuals i would look to in order to work with on issues. i believe there is bipartisan support on a number of issues. the corporate tax rate -- there is bipartisan support for that.

there is bipartisan support looking at reforming the tax code, repealing the death tax, which we have done in nebraska. looking at repealing the alternative minimum tax. that was set up and as a parallel text that was trying to capture income from wealthier individuals. it was not indexed for inflation. that is dipping down and hurting the middle class so that one in five people in the middle class are affected by that. there is support for a number of issues including those. >> you can work with me as well. i support cutting spending. i worked with dick shelby to reform our intelligence structure. rob portman and i worked to reform the internal revenue service. i've worked with george bush and john mccain to normalize

relations with vietnam. it was a wonderful bipartisan accomplishment that i am proud of. is not just identifying republicans. the rules have to change, and i promise you, i believe i can persuade americans to amend the constitution, to allow the congress to ban both outside money and limit the amount of money in campaigns because it is corrupting our political decision-making. we need to change the rules of the filibuster and reduce the number of committees, to reform the conventional pension -- congressional pension. there are many changes that need to occur, not just identifying somebody that i can work with, but who am i going to fight. i will be fighting with mitch mcconnell and harry reid on a

regular basis. >> thank you. you have 30 seconds for a bottle. >> throughout my adult life i have been fortunate to serve on a number of boards, commissions. i was a school board member over 20 years. you learn to work with and of people. on a school board you work but educators, and people with the community. i have done that, not just in the legislature, but throughout my adult life, and that is something i believe i have a talent for. >> for those of you supporting her, but do not worry with you, i will work with you after the campaign. we have got to change washington. it is not going to work to identify republicans or democrats that we can work with,

unless we change the rules of the congress. it will be a fight, but i can believe we can persuade americans that it needs to be done, and i believe i can persuade americans that we need to amend our constitution. >> what do you like about the affordable care act, and what would you change about it? if you dropped the requirement that everybody bite insurance, -- bought insurance, would it continue? >> i'd like that it is a market- oriented program. i like that it has decreased the cost of 300,000 state citizens over their prescription drugs, and has increased the amount of money that they can get preventive care and testing. the big moment will occur in

2014. 120,000 working men and women in nebraska -- and you know who they are. anybody who makes 10 bucks an hour or less. they will be able to afford to buy health insurance. for personal as parents -- from personal experience, they can determine whether or not you can hold a job, whether you can survive as a family, it will have not much of an impact picked it will be good for nebraska. i believe it will be good for the economy. i can identify and number of things that need to be changed, but fundamentally this bill would do a lot of good for our state. >> i want to repeal the affordable health care act, and i believe we need to step forward and go and they step-by- step fashion in order to

address accessibility and affordability of health care in this country. we need to look at tort reform, liability reform. in nebraska we are fortunate that we have a cap on liability, and that helps keep costs down, because one quarter of medical procedures asked for are not necessary. doctors do it because of their concern for liability. we need to look at carrying insurance across state lines. we need to look at making it easier for health care associations to be formed, so businesses and individuals can have a more competitive and affordable health care insurance. we do not need to have a mandate. we do not need to have a board come between a patient and a doctor. we certainly thdo not need to

steal money from medicare to pay for it. >> nothing was stolen. all it did was extended the insolvency date of medicare back a years. do what she wants to do, and in solvency will occur in 2016. i ask you this question -- why are there no the breast cancer over 65 that are uninsured? the answer is federal law, and the same arguments you're hearing against the hear will level against medicare in 1965. >> thank you. this is stealing over $700 billion from medicare, taking that reimbursement from hospitals. hospitals than expected to make that up. they expect to make it up because the increase in patients that would be on government insurance. that was the deal made. you can talk about political statements, but the fact is, it

takes at $700 billion from medicare. >> thank you, senator. the next is for sen. fischer . >> do you think every american is entitled to healthcare, quality health care to insurance? or do you think it is something that should be earned. >> i believe we need to look at the affordability of health care. we need to make sure americans can afford it. we need to make sure that americans have opportunities to have jobs, good paying jobs, in order to purchase health care. as i said earlier, we always need to be cognizant and take care of those who truly cannot care for themselves. we need to look a pre-existing conditions. i hear that bipartisan talks on both sides. i note that will happen. we can work this out so people with pre-existing conditions are covered. but my main concern is to make it affordable. health care really is not affordable for anyone.

you can always get your insurance and whether you buy yourself if your self insured and have a large deductible, or if you're fortunate enough to have an employer who helps to provide you with health care insurance, it is expensive. we need to look at ways we can lower the cost of health care insurance in this country. >> thank you, senator. sen. kerrey. >> that $700 billion pushes the insolvency date of medicare out to 2024. reverse it, it is solvent in 2016. that is not an exaggeration. we having messed up health care system in my view. i think there's a lot we can do to take the affordable health care act and increase the number of people who have insurance. i don't think she gets to appoint or use a "health care is free -- i don't think you should get to a point where you say "health care is free."

we all have to participate in controlling the cost. how far do we want to go? under the current law, what we have is guys like me that the blown up in a war, where eligible for subsidies. i do not recommend it as a way to be eligible, but if you hit the age of 65, if you are poor and medicaid is the worst, -- work for the right employer or for the government. a federal, state, city, school, county, they're all subsidized. if you think about the affordable healthcare act, i would like to see the fed's swapped outk-12 and remove the burden of medicaid from the state, but also to get to a point where you could really start to use these exchanges as a way to increase the number of people have health insurance, and also facing the true cost of the corporate >> thank you. sen. fischer, 30 seconds.

>> we learn more and more about the affordable healthcare act every day. as i talked to medical providers across the state, they have deep concerns. they cannot expand because of the uncertainty. with hospitals that are concerned, especially in rural nebraska. i have a number of critical access hospitals. they don't know what is coming because of the uncertainty that is out there with health care. i always go back to we need to make sure that health care is affordable. that was not addressed in the debate that passed or the non debate that passed the affordable healthcare act. >> thank you, senator fischer. >> i have heard the same uncertainty, but congress can take every single tax and spending decision beyond the election and gets back to the need to reform congress, to change it so it stops during the sort of thing. a lot of uncertainty is born from people saying they want to repeal the law. these exchanges can work.

these exchanges are market- oriented. a lot needs to be changed, but we need to go forward and not back. >> next question for senator kerrey. >> solid intelligence reports that iran is very close to testing and nuclear weapon. at one point would you support military action against iran? >> i have found the intelligence committee for years, the first word out of my mouth is oxymoron. we don't always have a solid intelligence report. we cannot allow iran to acquire nuclear weapons. i don't think is worthwhile to discuss military options. i enter stand what the team can do. i interest and what our capabilities are. all need to say to iran is, we have the international community on our side and we cannot allow you to acquire nuclear weapons. i will say it again.

remember the veteran numbers i gave you earlier. $26 million worth of pension disability payments in 2001, 7 $6 billion today, going to $130 billion a day. i was concerned when i see two- thirds of nebraskans want to get out of afghanistan and two- thirds want to go to the war in iran. we all get worked up and wave the flag in get patriotic. i was in a war were that was the case. after three or four years we ran out of gas. remember, what happens afterwards? we have to be very careful, making it clear to iran we have tremendous amount of military capability and will use it if necessary to prevent you from acquiring nuclear weapons. >> thank you. sen. fischer. >> iran cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, but we have an administration sending mixed signals. with a strong ally in israel. the only democracy in the

region. this is not just their problem. it is not just the problem in the region. we're looking at the country of iran where it is estimated in three years they will have icbm's that can reach the united states. this is a concern for the world and for our country. we have a demonstration that has not been clear on foreign policy, and there has been a lack of leadership. in 2009, there were protesters in iran. we heard nothing from our government. in 2011, the government finally stepped forward and we saw some sanctions put in place. i am happy to see european countries have also stepped forward and into a limited sanctions against iran. but we need to have a strong in ministration who is going to make it clear that a line needs to be drawn. we have never heard from this government. we have never heard them say that iran should not be in reaching uranium.

we need to make clear if we are going to be leaders, if the united states of america is going to be a leader in foreign policy and keep stability in this world as has been our mission in the past, then we need to make it clear. >> sen. fischer, thank you. >> i'm not running for president so i do not want to disagree with president obama or governor romney on iran, but we cannot allow them to acquire nuclear weapons. but what happens afterwards? they do not call it the persian gulf for nothing. we got worked up when we launched cruise missiles in the mid-1980s in libya. the knockout pan am 103. what do we do afterwards? it is not as simple as saying, "we're going in there." i think we up to be conscious of what it means we draw a line. >> i would reiterate that we

need to have leadership in this country when it comes to foreign policy. we have not seen that in the last four years. we're witnessing the turmoil, which i believe is due in part to that. we have seen terrorism in al qaeda research is in libya. this world is not a safe place. our world has changed in the last 11 years, becoming less safe. if we do not have strong messages sent from washington, and makes it even less safe. >> the next question is for senator fischer. >> it has been said the greatest threat to america right now is is accumulating debt, $16 trillion and counting. so security, medicare and medicaid are the main problems going forward. what real solutions would you come up with? >> $16 trillion in debt. who would ever have thought that? who would have thought it for years ago? we cannot continue down this path. as i travel the state of

nebraska, i hear that from everyone. this is not sustainable. what do we do about it? we get spending under control, cut spending. i support a balanced budget amendment. we backed government away from businesses. if we reduce regulation. i met with some hold builders -- with some home builders and link in a few weeks ago. it is interesting because it was not that many years ago when inspectors would come in and say, "you need to change this so you are in compliance with this role." now they come in and you are fine print this home builder had a ladder leaning against the wall and he was fined $7,000. that is not a way to grow this economy. we have to grow the economy if we are going to make the tough decisions to make medicare and social security sustainable into the future. let me be clear once again. i believe that we cannot change

the benefits for people over the age of 40. we need to be honest with our younger citizens in this country. you all know that the programs you have are not sustainable. but if the government is honest with you saying that things didn't change, maybe those under 40 need to look at means -- that things need to change, maybe those under 40 can make plans. we need to have a government that is honest. >> there's a big difference between sen. fischer and myself on this. i have said it is all it back to the entitlement commission in 1994. the problem was bad then and has gotten worse. the commitments do not necessarily mean we can afford to meet them. that is the problem retweet cannot afford it. what are we going to do about it? she's basically saying if you're over 40, you will not have to participate in the solution. if you're making more than $1

million a year, she says he will not have to participate in the solution. this is a difficult problem to solve. you saw in the chicago school strike, which i thought was ridiculous, you look at the chicago school struck and behind that is public pensions in chicago. it will be broke in two or three years. they made commitments, too. the problem is, when you keep your commitments, you start laying off teachers and personnel, class sizes are estimated to be 50. the same thing is happening at the federal level. the question is, not are we going to keep our commitments, but are we going to do the right thing for our future? the most moving moment of my political career was in lincoln, nebraska on june 6, 1994 with men who landed on the beaches of normandy 50 years earlier. we celebrated that not because they avoided risk, but because they took risk. are we going to be remembered in

the same fashion? if we do it the way sen. fischer is talking about, i promise you we will not >> i was not in government when those commitments were made. but i continue as a state senator for eight years, i took my job seriously. when i made a commitment, that meant i was going to keep it. that meant i was hoping the people that came after me and served in the legislature would keep that commitment also. i can tell you what i will not do. i will not cut benefits. i will not raise taxes. i will not steal $700 billion from medicare. >> first of all, your balanced judgment -- budget, i think it is the wrong way of approaching a. we have a commitment we cannot find. it is simple math. it is a $60 trillion unfunded liability with $400,000 of debt for every single person in the workforce.

we made a commitment we cannot keep. what are we going to do about it? if we do not do anything about it, we will end up like greece relatively soon. >> both of you have said businesses are overregulated. what specifically would you do to roll back regulations? >> that is to me? >> yes. >> you're looking to her and talking to me. >> charming. >> you are charming. what are you doing tonight? [laughter] >> i did start a business here in omaha, nebraska. the first thing that did do was get a permit from the city of ralston. we had to get a zoning change the city council. i have been dealing with government regulation since 1973. i expressed that was, and senator, looking at whether or not there is a benefit, cost effective. i don't think the business

mandate will work. i think we are imposing -- ferc singh had to do one thing and epa saying and acted to another. they're turned answer, which lot to vibrate? i personally think it is excessive. there is no question there's cost attached to every single regulation. i like measuring what that cost is going to be. i don't support tying it up, but basically, federal agencies write a rule in advance or instruction before the rule itself is promulgated and has the impact of the role even before the final rule was done. lots of things i think we can do to decrease the cost of regulation on business. i don't think there's any question it would help us create more jobs. >> sen. fischer. >> i think there are lots of things we can do.

my first priority bill the first year the legislature was a bill by senator pat warren who happens to be a democrat here in omaha. i chose his for my party bill. it puts in place here in nebraska a process whereby a citizen can challenge a rule or regulation to make sure it meets legislative intent. so i have always been concerned about rules and regulations. we need to look at something like that of the federal level. we need to use a committee process at the federal level. one senator is not going to be a to make all these changes on their own. but if you use a committee process and look at those rules and regulations that have a certain economic impact, that is a good way to start. here in nebraska we look at the dust. we have all heard about the farm dust and how really ridiculous that rule was. sen. kerrey mention the emissions of our public power plant that is of deep concern

because in nebraska, we're so fortunate we have public power and glory electric rates. it helps us all as consumers, but also helps us to draw businesses to our state, to grow businesses. it is an advantage to come to nebraska because of those rates. you grow jobs. but we have to remember that if you set the rules and regulations, government should be there to help. they should be there to help individuals and businesses. we all want safe workplaces and clean water and clean air. that should be the goal of a rule or regulation, common sense. >> sen. kerrey. >> at the same time, we have to be careful to not get carried away with our own pro-business rhetoric. i remember the arguments against title 9, against changing the law to make it harder for someone who is drinking under the influence of alcohol and wearing a seatbelt.

75% of the gold medals for women. we have decreased fatalities on our roads. >> 30 seconds. >> i do believe in limited government and i believe in personal responsibility. i don't think government needs to be out there controlling every aspect of our lives. that is one reason why i am opposed to the affordable healthcare act, because of that individual mandate. government should not be telling every individual in this country what we need to do and what we should not be doing. the rules and regulations are out of control and they need to be common sense and need to be responsible. >> next question for sen. fischer. >> very broad question, and i am looking at you. >> thank you. >> no offense, sen. kerrey. do you have fears for the future

questor >> i amquesti optimistic about the future of america. i am an optimistic person at heart. i believe we still have and we still can become a great country. there is a number of proposals out there that concerns me, as a concern all nebraskans. i have listened to those concerns and listen to those fears as i have travelled across the state. but i still believe that we can turn this country around. i still believe that we can be on the road to recovery. and it is because of who we are. as nebraskans, we always like to say we are rugged individualists. we are honoring at times, but we are rugged individualists. we make good decisions because we use common sense. we have those core values, set

priorities, work hard. we believe in rewarding hard work. we believe in honesty and integrity and keeping your word. those are qualities of every american citizen. so, yes, i am optimistic. i believe we can change the direction our country is headed by putting in place some common- sense rules and regulations by repealing some laws that i believe should not be there, by taking care of our citizens and building a better and brighter future. >> sen. kerrey. >> i am also optimistic. i have been all my life, sometimes to a fault. sometimes when the terms and conditions told me i should be more pessimistic, it got me in trouble from time to time. i am very optimistic. we have a great system, open and free, and one of the most patriotic statements was from a woman in a acapulco who runs a grocery store in schuyler.

she is legal, was to be a citizen. she tells the story about why this country is great. she is free, can do she wants, is safe. i do worry about this balanced budget amendment. it is going to have a terrible effect on nebraska. we're not going to be able to provide the grants are students need or have the research that needs to occur to develop these phenomenal public/private relationships i talked about earlier. you can see what happens with greeting businesses with ability university beside it. these private-partner relationships all run the university of nebraska medical center are at risk with this balanced budget amendment. so i am very optimistic. i scored again.

we have a lot of kids who are in trouble. young kids need more support both nonfinancial support coming from the not-for-profit sector as well as some of our government agencies. >> sen. fischer. >> i've heard a lot about the balanced budget amendment. maybe i should address that. i support a balanced budget amendment. in nebraska, we balance our budget every year as required by the constitution. we need to do that at the federal level as well. anytime you do not have controls on congress, and spending, on politicians, they will spend every dime they can get their hands on. we need to make the tough decisions and control spending. that is how we can move this country forward. >> first of all, he balanced the budget in 2009 and 2010 in nebraska as a result of federal stimulus money. 80%. correct me on this in the debate in elmont, but it is not just we have to balance our budget. it is the spending levels in

this amendment. it would mean we have to cut much deeper than i think we would have to if we face the fact we made over, and it's in social security and medicare. if you're willing to start with those programs and tell grover norquist he can put his plans where the sun doesn't shine, you can do it without having to savage the things we depend on in nebraska. >> this will be our final question ri. no rebuttals. >> political candidates or other political campaigns as we know can be brutal these days and appeared be more toxic in the last few years. as candidates, are there things you have done that you wish she did not have to do to win office? if so, what are they? >> there are trade-offs. the biggest and most difficult tradeoff is the one you make with your family. this puts a big burden on my wife and son.

i would not say i regret the decision, but am very conscious of what happens. all of this complaining about how terrible things are, nobody is going to shoot me like byrd did with hamilton. you have to do the work. we have to solve the problem. we have to accept the facts say we have to do things differently regardless of whether democrats or republicans get mad you. >> sen. fischer. >> campaign for this united states senate seat has been a wonderful experience. it has been great to travel across the state of nebraska to meet people all across the state. we're such a diverse state. there are so many positives out there. nebraskans are friendly, kind, welcoming. so it has been a wonderful experience. it is a little tough on my husband of 40 years that i am

not home that much and that he has to take off sometimes and travel with me. but the benefits far outweigh any negatives in this experience that i have the honor to enjoy. >> we move to the final part of our debate with the candidates closing remarks beginning with to address you directly, starting with sen. kerrey. >> thank you to our monitor and the participants here in the audience and nebraskans as well for paying attention to this campaign. i bring three things in closing. first, i have a set of experiences i think, in the effective in the senate. i have been in the military, have been in business, and a disabled veteran. i have been in government. i do not need on the job training. i know how to do this job and be effected. i know how to cross party lines and to grieve for my party when i do. separately, we have to change congress.

you have to believe it can be done. i don't the keeking get it done -- i hear that from voters. i think i can get it done. we have to amend our constitution and change rules a filibuster and change rules that govern these committees. 88 subcommittees are responsible for homeland security right now. there is lots of change that needs to occur. the last thing, my economic plan and sen. fischer's plan are dramatically different. i think changing our constitution would savage and increase employment in the state of nebraska. >> nebraskans have a clear choice in this election on november 6. there's a clear contrast between sen. kerrey and myself on just about every issue. i voted for and not to pass the largest tax relief package in history of the state of

nebraska. mr. kerrey help to pass the largest increase in our country. i support a balanced budget amendment. he did not in the senate. i would say if it would have passed and, we would not be looking at over trillion dollar deficit today. i do not believe that government should become a doctor and a patient. i support market-based health insurance. mr. kerrey does not read at a jobs plan so that we can cut spending, but we need to grow jobs to turn this economy around. we need to reduce regulation and reduce energy costs, reform a tax code. we need to repeal the health care law. we need to promote free and fair trade. that will get as on the road to recovery. we face many challenges in this country. but americans are exceptional people. because we have the talent, the resources, the knowledge and we

have the willpower to overcome the challenges. yes, i believe in a brighter future for america. i want to help build that brighter future so i ask for your support and ask for your vote. thank you. >> thank you, sen. fischer. join me, everyone, in thanking both candidates for their participation. [applause] we also want to thank the omaha community playhouse for hosting this important debate. and also, the great omaha chamber for its sponsorship of the forum. also, thank you to you as well and our panelists for the guests here in the audience. you can review the debate any time on line on ketv.com to help you make an informed decision on november 6. for that next month, ketv will devote a least 12 minutes of

coverage every day to the issues and the candidates in this election writ thank you for joining us for the second debate of u.s. senatorial campaign for nebraska senate. have a great day. [applause] >> if you missed any of this debate, you can see it entirely online on c-span. more coverage with a live wisconsin senate debate. tammy baldwin debates former health secretary, thompson, republican rick live coverage starting at 9:00 eastern right here on c-span. you can listen on c-span radio or watch online at c-span.org. here is a quick preview. >> wisconsin has become one of the most interesting senate races in the country. you have a state that has been politically roiling for over two years.

the presidential race. for a while, is deemed competitive. president obama seems to have pulled ahead by about five points in the latest polls. some of that has helped to change the trajectory of the race. earlier this month, governor tommy thompson, republican, seem to have the momentum. at this point, his democratic rival tammy baldwin seems to be within the margin of error or a little ahead. >> why is that? >> my best guess is that the baldwin surge corresponds with president obama getting some distance from governor romney. in august, it seemed competitive, and still is. governor thompson was perceived as the best nominee. he had a competitive primary. paul ryan was nominated for the vp. it seems like suddenly wisconsin was back in the republican

column. >> is tonight their first and only debate? >> i do not know that off the top of my head but it is going to be an interesting evening because governor thompson is a statewide branch. he is known as tommy. he is going to be seeking to label all and as a liberal. she is too liberal for nancy pelosi. she is one of several members of congress from a single district. she's going to try to define herself in a pitive way. >> that debate will be live from wisconsin and we will broadcast it on c-span at 9:00 p.m. eastern >> live coverage will happen here on c-span starting at 9:00 p.m. eastern and also on c-span radio or on line. it is part of our coverage of

campaign 2012. remarks now from the president of yemen on the future of his country in light of security problems and a hunger crisis. he is at the woodrow wilson center in washington. this is expected to start in just a moment.

>> we are again at the woodrow wilson center waiting starts from the remarks on the future of yemen. it is running just a couple of minutes late. we will have coverage when it gets under way. right now, your phone calls from "washington journal." >> it is one of the oldest tricks in the republican playbook, blamed the a liberal mainstream media. whether justified or not, attacks against the press has served as the conservative defense mechanism for decades, from bush's bumper sticker in 1992 to sarah palin's criticisms of the liberal media in 2008 to the billboards and advertisements run the country this year. but in an election season in

which voices have often led the charge, mitt romney has a penchant for secrecy and it has become a problem cry. conservatives have defended the standard bearer when he is on his heels but since he emerged as the nominee, there has been a pervasive feeling among right- wing pundits that romney is not their man. this article, romney abandons blame the media strategy. this is from yesterday afternoon. mitt romney said last night that he does not worry about a liberal bias in the mainstream media. another sign campaign is distancing itself from the blame the media strategy it began to

court a free weeks ago. "people are able to provide their own perspective -- >> from this morning's washington journal, we go to the woodrow wilson center for comments from the president of yemen on the future of his country. >> do we have some more room for the president's party? let's see. ok. good afternoon and welcome to the wilson center. i am jane harman, president and ceo. the wilson center, a living memorial to our 28 president, is a vibrant arena for discussion. our charter remains -- from creating a safe political space

to engage a diversity of views and explore in today's toughest policy issues. all viewpoints are sought out and heard, free from spain. -- spin. on behalf of the wilson center and the atlantic council, i am honored to welcome his excellency, abdrabuh mansour hadi. the president of the republic of yemen and to welcome members of his cabinet. we are also very pleased to have been the audience with us today, the chairman of the advisory board. where are you? he is right there. i was in beirut shortly after your father was assassinated and i met with your brother when he was prime minister. your family has paid a heavy price and offers much for the future of your extraordinary

country. thank you for being here. i have also been in yemen and met with several members of the cabinet and others in march of 2010. i visited the presidential palace and was the only congressional representatives to meet with members of the opposition party at the time. it quickly became clear to me that yemen had the potential to be a vibrant civil society and the relatively peaceful transition in yemen over the past year leaves me optimistic about the future. how wonderful it would be if yemen could become a model for the region. but for now, there are a daunting problems. supplies of water and oil are virtually depleted. there are over 100,000 villages

that need help and yet government services are essentially absent. yemen has the second highest unemployment rate in the arab world, 35%. the average person lives on less than $2 a day. it also has the second highest rate of chronic malnutrition after afghanistan. in the south, where many advocate succession, al qaeda militants have taken advantage of the turmoil to grow in size and force. hundreds of thousands of people across the country are displaced. and yet, it takes many years to establish peaceful transition. it took the united states in 13 years to move from declaring independence in 1776 to

ratifying our constitution in 1789. and it took us nearly 75 years more to abolish slavery, 150 years to give women the vote, and 175 to outlaw racial discrimination. no one president can do it along. but he or she can lay a foundation for the future. history shows us that building a democratic and secure nation is hard. it takes patience and persistence and requires strong and smart to leadership. an important lesson i learned from nine terms in congress and trips to many states in transition is that to their leaders have to want to move to a pluralistic democracy and more

than their outside supporters want them to. president hadi has made it clear he wants to build a democratic and pluralistic country. he was sworn in as president in february after winning the election with 99 percent of the vote. the election was the last part of an accord that provided former president saleh with immunity agreement to step down after more than three decades in power and a year of mass protests in the country. but perhaps this peaceful transition could serve as a model for syria, something many of us are urging. as the leader of the country, president hadi has delayed the building block -- blocks for a peaceful future. he is partnering the u.s. to

restructure his military to combat al qaeda. the strategy includes cooperation to capture ok -- or tale about a dozen militants, working with persian gulf allies to train and arm security forces to respond to the threat to destabilize the country and its government. but there are other pieces to this, as we were discussing at lunch. this is not all about drums -- drones. economic aid has come from the world bank and from the imf, which approved almost $100 million in interest-free emergency loans in april. just yesterday, the friends of yemen pledged almost $1.5

billion to yemen. president hadi said it would help avoid a civil war, which could be a regional and possibly a global threat. the announcement came after president hadi called for more practical support from abroad to help his country fight al qaeda. he also said that internal as well as an external support for al qaeda must stop. in his first interview after his election he said that a comprehensive national dialogue was a top priority as his country moves forward. he promised to involve people from all political and social factions, including youth in his wide-ranging national discussion. something like the discussion

we're having today. president hadi said he would engage in a conditional dialogue with islamic militants, including aqap, but only provided they put down their weapons first. mr. president, we share your desire for inclusive dialogue and we very much look forward to talking you this afternoon about a way forward for your country. after president hadi's remarks, frederick kempe will moderate the q&a discussion. fred comes to the council after a career at the wall street journal. he is the author of several books, including berlin, 1961, which was published in may and is a best seller. the wilson center last partnered

with the atlantic council on the arab transitions. it was a spectacular event and we are pleased to be joining forces today. so now please join me in welcoming the president of yemen, his excellency, president hadi, who will give some opening remarks followed by the q&a. [applause]

[speaking arabic] >> the director of the center and ladies and gentlemen, who are here today, i am very pleased to meet with you today and give you a brief overview of the security and economic situation in the republic of yemen. as you know, yemen has a strategic location. it is in the southern tip of the arab peninsula and it reaches the west to the south and east and due to its geographical importance, yemen has one of the most important waterways in

the world. because it connects the indian ocean and the mediterranean. it is through the suez canal of the red sea and also the unique geographical situation is 3 miles away from the international waterways from the southern shore that is 1,900 kilometers which will allow transportation and international lines and due to the piracy activities, that is a byproduct of the somalian civil war and this will lead to a catastrophic, international maritime. a yemen were to slide into a

civil war, especially with the presence of the terrorist organizations, who are working on deteriorating the situation in yemen, like what took place a year-and-a-half ago, now occupied era jumped into the security situation and tried to overtake many stations and states. we were lucky -- after that, after the election in february, so there were a political decision and political will. we afforded the al qaeda --tempt with decisiveness 0

thwarted the archive attempt with decisiveness. due to all that is mentioned, we want to say that the stability and security of yemen is not for our own sake but rather it is an international necessity. equally, and a deterioration in the situation in yemen will have an extremely negative repercussion on the area and to the global area. after this brief overview, i will talk in brief about the political landscape after the unification in 1990. yemen managed to grow steadily towards cementing democracy in

diversity but there were mistakes that had been made. mostly in the mismanagement and corruption which led to the protests in 2011. after the wind of change swept over the area of what is called the air of spring. but he -- arab spring. but to the negative complications' lead to further complications in yemen and the country was teetering toward a civil strife and it will become maybe worse that is what is taking place in somalia. than what is taking

place in somalia. despite the tribal nature of this society, many have resorted to dialogue and there were many compromises being made. for the peaceful transition to power, in order to get the yemeni people to achieve their potential, we played a major role in avoiding the civil war. through the assistance of the united states and the gulf countries and the u.n. and the gulf initiative, to implement it, the yemen cosigned it in november 2011 in saudi arabia. it provided a political

solution that has moved away from bloodshed and affection. -- defection. now yemen has executed the first step from this initiative and we have a national coalition government and a peaceful transition to power and have elected a new president and this is a new thing in yemen, through the election, the yemeni expressed their will in finding a civil solution and avoiding the civil war. therefore, yes, the yemeni voted yes for unification and a peaceful state.

a civil, a modern state that is based on rule of law and which allows us to get into the second phase ends to implement what is left of the political solution and get yemen out of the bottlenecks and make it landed safely. we have a law that will assist in solving all the bloodshed and all of the conflict and we are still in need of the political and economic assistance that will help us a lot in implementing all of the other segments of the gulf initiative. this is what the yemeni people are looking for. we got tired of conflict and war. and now, and through the national dialogue, in order to

get the dialogue as soon as possible, we will have a blueprint of a prosperous yemeni future that is based on social justice and equality. and good governance to reforming the administration and combat corruption. we are steady to lead yemen and make the yemeni people achieve their potential in comfort and stability that will reflect on the region and in the world. ladies and gentlemen, along with the economic problems that the republic to suffering, thousands of terrorists and it

is an international phenomenon and yemen, since the appearance of this phenomenon, we are engaged in war and we adopted a political theory meaning that terrorism has no religion and it is a common threat regionally and internationally. it requires an necessitates a common effort to fight terrorism within the frame, along with what we did to cement the corporation in combating terrorism with more than 40 nations, and that included all aspects in intelligence exchange, activities, and how best to combat and deter and have a bilateral meeting with

those nations. this theory that has been adopted by the yemeni government comes with the understanding of terrorism and today it is not an isolated problem to a specific nation. it is, rather, an international threat from the political, social, economic levels. this will reflect the fierce willingham-- fears that the threats are diversified and transnational. there are lives that they're been lost. we have suffered and we are still suffering from terrorism and we have played a lot with blood and life. many of the public institutions, and it affected tourism.

and now most of the hotels in yemen are closed. there are no foreigners at all. from one other side, the terrorist activities, 150,000 to the neighboring province at the expense of the state and we provided shelter and food for those displaced. from may 2011 through september 2012, terrorism has -- 88 stew -- schools have been destroyed by terrorists. three injured 83 armed forces have been lost.

3350 have been wounded. and the civilian death toll is about 322 wounded and 294 dead, from civilians. the yemeni efforts in combating terrorism, we took many measures and policies at all levels, and on the economic security and even then -- intellectual engagement, we need to face in combat terrorism and extremism. we enacted many laws that are specifically to combat terrorism. we took many preventive measures against terrorist elements.

we got rid of 344 terrorists from may 2011 through september 2012. we detected and arrested and terrorist -- 10 terrorist cells. and many social players, along with those official measures that have been taken by the yemeni government, the civil committees assisted and helped combating the al qaeda fighters, either by providing intelligence or the whereabouts or their participation during any action against them.

now outside that are targeting the civilians from those areas by providing, by putting the snipers or killing them. the challenges we are facing in combating terrorism in yemen comes with a high rate of unemployment and the deterioration of the gdp and there are huge numbers of people, our friends in the united states in this room today, they should know that we have 6 million young people who are between 15 and 28 years old. these people are in a serious problem and there are 600,000 graduates and they have been waiting for an jobs for over 10

years now. and there are also 70% of the population of yemen who are under the 35 years old, my country is facing many foreign intervention, especially from iran, that is targeting against the development in the area. an imposing as a regional power and it is seeking a strategic loss and there are many indicators that the regime in syria will fall. the iranians are seeking a foothold in my country and to the strategic location of yemen and because of the strategic location in the horn of africa.

these activities of the irani intervention, they have been backing many spy networks and detected five of those who are active in the favor of iran and we brought them to justice. and we detected a sixth network and they are backing the military action and media support and intelligence support. iran also widen the target list by uying -- buying political figures and is trying to fothwat the political situation in yemen. they called it a saudi-american

conspiracy and iran created a climate of chaos and violence. it is benefiting from this so it will have its agenda implemented and it makes my country -- so it will target the rest of the gulf states and they have the intention to expand and have power in the red sea and the arabian sea. it is a threatening the international maritime waterways and yemen was and still is one of the most countries suffering from terrorism. we're working on a clear strategy in cooperation with france and other allies to combat -- with friends and other allies to combat terrorism. we're looking forward our friends will stand with us to face combating poverty and

creating jobs for the u.s. and development that will cement our efforts in combat territories. that is growing in the -- yemen will reflect positively the rest of the areas due to its deep connection and the correlation of yemen security and the region's security and because terrorism is a threat not against one nation, it is a threat to all nations equally and it will require cooperation and assistance on the international level to come back to terrorism and face all the challenges that will lead to extremism and terrorism. therefore, our common efforts is a necessity in order to protect

the lives and properties and all of the civilians and to combat any thing that will threat to the international security. ladies and gentlemen, what is important from this participation is to shed light on the economic situation in yemen. it is facing three major problems of the same type, a political crisis, economic crisis, and a security crisis. therefore, the gulf initiatives has created a solution on a political level. and it is in the first steps, it has two prongs, phae a an db. -- phase a and b.

phase a was to have a government divvied up between the party in power and the opposition. and we created the prime minister from the opposition. after that, we will go into an early election within the frame of 90 days. of course we held that election in a difficult situation. the capitol was divided in three zones and the firing was continuing day and night and the roads were cut off. and the oil was scarce. hospitals were not functioning because they need oil, electricity. we use to the reserve generators

and we did not have any be sold to have a power generator. there are a big number of people who passed away, who died, especially those suffering from chronic disease, kidneys or during surgery's. the situation was very complicated but 95% of the yemeni war against going into civil war. therefore, we held elections in a difficult circumstance. people will go to the ballot boxes between the barrage and the fire. they do not going to cast their votes for anything. just they will go so yemen will

not go into civil war. and we know if yemen were to go into civil war, it would be worse than somalia or afghanistan. to the area, to the region, to the world. therefore, we held the election and i was selected as the president for two years during which we would engage in international debate that will include all of the political spectrums and we will debate all of the issues at hand and we'll have a constitutional amendment after which we will have a referendum and the yemeni people will decide the ways and means

with which or how they're going to have the security and stability and unity of yemen. but any other way, it may happen. but according to the provision of the national -- the u.n. security council, it would be ideal that we in yemen agree on this initiative and how it would be implicated -- implemented. we will ensure the unity of yemen. it will eventually lead to democracy, social justice. there is, after this initiative, there will be no

plaintiff and no victims from the north or the south, from the east or west. thank you for listening to me. i am ready for any question you might have. [applause] th >> mr. president, thank you. that was a very important statement. with jane harman at the helm,

thank you for joining us. on behalf of the atlantic council and the middle east, and senator chuck a book, -- hagel, we're deeply honored. you outlined very clearly the problems you are facing and called it a political and economic security crisis. you went into detail on the humanitarian crisis, the youth unemployment, 600 that year -- 600,000 graduates looking for work, the number of schools ruin. we have been working these issues with the project of middle east democracy. here is the question, let's get

specific on this, you need international support at a time when the west, the u.s. and europe, is not particularly wanting to empty its pockets for that support. the u.s., saudi arabia, other partners met yesterday in new york. let's get specific. what do you need? what do you need from the united states now in the fight against terrorism? question number one, and be specific as you can, if you had a wish list. drones, a big debate in this town and around the world. some people say the most effective weapon never others say it creates more unrest and extremism. perhaps you could give us your point of view.

>> thank you for this question. first, as far as the assistance from saudi arabia and the other gulf states, i want to thank them and i value the saudi arabia assistance because it helped us in a critical situation. they assisted us with oil and when we had no power on the cars were stopping, we received oil. two months from saudi arabia. and for the second time, for three months, if it were not for the support of oil, we would not

be able to hold elections and to implement the first phase of the goal senate -- gulf initiative. therefore i want to thank the kings. i personally called him and explain to him the situation. we cannot go over hold elections when we do not have power in all the hospitals and people are dying inside of the hospitals. and the roads between the provinces are being cut off. during that period, the year the election was held for 90 days. how can i, in 90 days, hold an election and i do not have oil? i do not have electricity?

roads are being cut off. people are dying inside of hospitals. and the fighting was still raging. there was division within the security apparatus. there was division and al qaeda took over some provinces. the assistance we receive from saudi arabia, especially oil, it helped us to go until we were done with the elections. directly after the elections, eyesore in front of the parliament -- i swore in front of the parliament and i promise

the people who were displaced will do my best to ti remove al qaeda. with coordination with united states, they cooperated with the shared information with us and they helped us in using the drone's because our air force cannot carry out missions at night. they were soviet era fighter jets, made in the 1970's, the and they cannot carry out their missions at

night with the same precision. even at they did, it is unlikely they will be successful. as the drones are concerned, they are linked to the satellite and the pinpoint the targets and they have a 0 margin of error. if you know exactly what are you are aiming at. , due to my military background, and i have an expertise in air force management during combat.

the high precision that has been provided by the drones -- the electronic brain is unmatched by the human brain. and the united states cooperated at great length with us but practically on the ground, the popular army, the paramilitary, they played a decisive role in removing al

qaeda. because these popular forces, they are also young and they have fought in the front lines and the official army was fighting behind them and it was them who were taken by force and that is how we managed to get rid of al qaeda. when we got rid of the first emirate they had in those provinces. now they are scattered all over.

but they will never regain the same force they once enjoyed because when they established their reign, all members of al qaeda up from afghanistan, pakistan, indonesia, morocco, algeria, tunisia, egypt, syria, iraq, saudi arabia, allover. even from western europe, they came all over their. >> that is a powerful endorsement of the drone strategy, with your own military. what, on top of that would you

want from the u.s.? what is the most important u.s. can give you right now you're asking for? to help this fight? >> the most important thing we ask from the united states, the economic aid, the economic package, 74% of the solution in yemen is an economic problem. an economic solution. because the level of poverty, it is nurturing al qaeda. when you have a 6 million young in the age bracket over 15 and

less than 22, they will, and they will recruit them to al qaeda. and they will apply the sharia law and the way they are using it in iraq. and those kids, they will take them and train them for three months and after three months, once they have been brainwashed, they will ask him to call his mom so she will pray for you that you will be successful and admitted as a suicide mission.

this is how they convinced them, brainwash them. they are telling them the list is way too long and probably you will not make it on the suicide list. ask your mom to pray for you. so you will be included on the suicide list. this is a very complicated problem. we thinks working with yemen and the cooperation on the economic level, the economic package, the

cooperation in fighting al qaeda, let me tell everybody in this room, it is the beginning of the end of al qaeda when we got rid of them. it was the first step to get rid of al qaeda in the arab peninsula. >> we know your time is short. we have about 12 minutes left. i'm going to go straight to the audience and ask you to keep your question and make it a question, very short period we will go back and forth with as many questions as we can get in. >> thank you for being here today, president hadi.

i am thrilled to have had an opportunity to hear you speak about yemen. my question, we are currently implementing a project funded by usaid and my question relates to the status of women. we are optimistic that with the transition going on and talk about it being inclusive, that it will include those populations that have been marginalized, including women. i would love to hear your thoughts, your vision on how the status of women can be improved in yemen moving forward. >> i would say particularly with the plan. >> the gcc initiative outlines women's participation in all steps and levels and fields.

the commission that i ordered to form that is working on the national dialogue, 26% is women and this is proof we are serious about implementing the gcc initiative as far as women are concerned. >> forgive me, mr. president. >> the middle eastern studies at the woodrow wilson center. my question is the human rights watch lately, to get rid of the immunity from the former president saleh.

there are fact-finding commissions that the air force was used against protesters. you you agree? >> the gcc is clear. we are working on implementing this initiative. the paragraph number four grant him immunity. my job includes to deliver based on the gcc initiative. >> please identify yourself as you ask your question. >> maria, msi. your excellency, you said you wanted to help yemen transition to a secular state. is this still true and if yes,

why have you appointed some many members of the other party to government positions? >> the gcc initiative determined all of the quota of opposition parties and the national congress political party and the common national dialogue are those political entities that are mentioned within the gcc. they are the cosigners on the initiative and this means it does not mean that to eliminate any